3 ms·

One could argue that 20 years ago there was little to no reputation (good or bad) for most open-source software, and that made using open-source software much m

One could argue that 20 years ago there was little to no reputation (good or bad) for most open-source software, and that made using open-source software much more dangerous : it was more difficult to separate the good apples from the bad ones. Therefore his criticism made sense at the time. While open-source code and open-source maintainers are critical parts of the ecosystem, I think open source users are underrated. If nobody shared their experience about how a piece of open-source software is actually behaving once you put it to use in production, open-source software would have much less value than it currently has.

steveeq1 7y ago
No, open source has been a "thing" for quite some time even in 1998. No, the guy just didn't get it. He asked questions like who do you sue if something goes wrong. . . where is the market incentive to create software if there is no strong intellectual property rights. . . what if someone steals the code and makes a million dollars. . . What if the original author dies starving while some rich corporation takes advantage? I mean, really silly arguments when you look back. I told him that most of the software using this model is simply more reliable than proprietary software, but he just didn't get it. There was already plenty of "reputation" even back then, he just wasn't a hacker and couldn't understand any other perspective other than his own.
- eropple 7y ago
  > What if the original author dies starving while some rich corporation takes advantage? I mean, really silly arguments when you look back. The evolution of open source software in the twenty years hence suggests that this particular question is not as silly as you frame it.
  - steveeq1 7y ago
    No, open source software has been a regular thing since the 1980's and arguably with 1970's with richard stallman. It was already 20 years old by the time I was explaining it to the lawyer. He was just unable to understand anything that wasn't part of his paradigm.
    - eropple 7y ago
      Being "a regular thing" and being "a thing that enriches companies off the backs of community-minded software developers" are not concepts in conflict.
- Darkstryder 7y ago
  "The future is already here — it's just not very evenly distributed." You're right that open source had been a thing for quite some time in 1998. GNU was started in 1983 after all. But I respectfully disagree that open source was "obvious" in 1998. Hell, at that time, one could argue it was not obvious for a lot of people how much the Internet and computers would alter our lives. Open source was the least obvious part of quite a few a mind-bending paradigm shifts.
  - Retric 7y ago
    Open source was very obvious in 1998 for competent tech companies. As in look at successful companies in 2005 and most of them where using OS software in 1998. One of PG’s essays has a line like, ‘any competitor using Oracle was easy to ignore.’ Successful OS software needs to be good enough not to need marketing and happens to be free. It might not be the best, but cheap and good enough generally has a lot going for it.
    - Darkstryder 7y ago
      I fully agree. But I was talking about a (presumably not very tech-enthusiast) lawyer from 1998, not a software developer from that time.

steveeq1 7y ago

No, open source has been a "thing" for quite some time even in 1998. No, the guy just didn't get it. He asked questions like who do you sue if something goes wrong. . . where is the market incentive to create software if there is no strong intellectual property rights. . . what if someone steals the code and makes a million dollars. . . What if the original author dies starving while some rich corporation takes advantage? I mean, really silly arguments when you look back. I told him that most of the software using this model is simply more reliable than proprietary software, but he just didn't get it. There was already plenty of "reputation" even back then, he just wasn't a hacker and couldn't understand any other perspective other than his own.

eropple 7y ago
> What if the original author dies starving while some rich corporation takes advantage? I mean, really silly arguments when you look back. The evolution of open source software in the twenty years hence suggests that this particular question is not as silly as you frame it.
- steveeq1 7y ago
  No, open source software has been a regular thing since the 1980's and arguably with 1970's with richard stallman. It was already 20 years old by the time I was explaining it to the lawyer. He was just unable to understand anything that wasn't part of his paradigm.
  - eropple 7y ago
    Being "a regular thing" and being "a thing that enriches companies off the backs of community-minded software developers" are not concepts in conflict.
Darkstryder 7y ago
"The future is already here — it's just not very evenly distributed." You're right that open source had been a thing for quite some time in 1998. GNU was started in 1983 after all. But I respectfully disagree that open source was "obvious" in 1998. Hell, at that time, one could argue it was not obvious for a lot of people how much the Internet and computers would alter our lives. Open source was the least obvious part of quite a few a mind-bending paradigm shifts.
- Retric 7y ago
  Open source was very obvious in 1998 for competent tech companies. As in look at successful companies in 2005 and most of them where using OS software in 1998. One of PG’s essays has a line like, ‘any competitor using Oracle was easy to ignore.’ Successful OS software needs to be good enough not to need marketing and happens to be free. It might not be the best, but cheap and good enough generally has a lot going for it.
  - Darkstryder 7y ago
    I fully agree. But I was talking about a (presumably not very tech-enthusiast) lawyer from 1998, not a software developer from that time.