3 ms·

That reasoning makes sense at first. Until you consider the fact that critical infrastructure depends on underfunded open source projects that sometimes have t

by cj 7y ago

That reasoning makes sense at first. Until you consider the fact that critical infrastructure depends on underfunded open source projects that sometimes have trouble staying afloat. NTP is the classic example of the problem. https://www.infoworld.com/article/3144546/time-is-running-out-for-ntp.html https://www.infoworld.com/article/3144546/time-is-running-ou... http://www.ntp.org/ http://www.ntp.org/

ceejayoz 7y ago
I'd love to know what the story behind "Google was unable to sponsor us this year" is.
Nasrudith 7y ago
If they depend upon it then there are two obvious solutions - provide it doing the work themselves or fund it.
- Avamander 7y ago
  Unfortunately people pick the third option that is dissing the developer who has made that piece of code for trying to get funding for the work.
  - Nasrudith 7y ago
    That is just a ruder version of the null option "doing nothing, leaving it unreliable and suffering the consequences".
dragonwriter 7y ago
> Until you consider the fact that critical infrastructure depends on underfunded open source projects that sometimes have trouble staying afloat This is not principally an issue of a funding problem for the maitnainers, but an issue of a risk management problem for the relying parties. Unfortunately, it's probably going to take a massive costly, critical failure before it gets addressed, but once that happens it will be addressed quickly, and critical infrastructure will rapidly not be relying on underfunded open source projects. (Whether that is through those products—whether the existing core project or a new fork—getting better support from well-heeled downstream parties, as many widely-critical open source projects (e.g., SQLite) already have, or whether it means those products get replaced may not be consistent from product to product. If they do get funding, though, it's not going to be without the funding parties taking a keen interest in governance, as the risk doesn't go away with unaccountable funding alone.

by cj 7y ago

ceejayoz 7y ago

I'd love to know what the story behind "Google was unable to sponsor us this year" is.

Nasrudith 7y ago

If they depend upon it then there are two obvious solutions - provide it doing the work themselves or fund it.

Avamander 7y ago
Unfortunately people pick the third option that is dissing the developer who has made that piece of code for trying to get funding for the work.
- Nasrudith 7y ago
  That is just a ruder version of the null option "doing nothing, leaving it unreliable and suffering the consequences".

dragonwriter 7y ago

> Until you consider the fact that critical infrastructure depends on underfunded open source projects that sometimes have trouble staying afloat This is not principally an issue of a funding problem for the maitnainers, but an issue of a risk management problem for the relying parties. Unfortunately, it's probably going to take a massive costly, critical failure before it gets addressed, but once that happens it will be addressed quickly, and critical infrastructure will rapidly not be relying on underfunded open source projects. (Whether that is through those products—whether the existing core project or a new fork—getting better support from well-heeled downstream parties, as many widely-critical open source projects (e.g., SQLite) already have, or whether it means those products get replaced may not be consistent from product to product. If they do get funding, though, it's not going to be without the funding parties taking a keen interest in governance, as the risk doesn't go away with unaccountable funding alone.