6 ms·

Nobody's saying it has to be, uh...what's the name of a profitable internet company that isn't Facebook? But making demands on people who are working for free i

Nobody's saying it has to be, uh...what's the name of a profitable internet company that isn't Facebook? But making demands on people who are working for free is bad manners. I don't care if you think the internet changes everything, it's still possible to be an asshole. My off the cuff solution is for project owners to add a status flag to their issue trackers: PAID. Anybody can submit a bug as PAID, but it costs $50,000-100,000 to do so, per bug. And no private fixes: there is one version and everybody gets the benefit. No badgering on ETAs either. If Ford thinks it has value, then the developer should get some of that value, and $100K for a suitable patchlevel of cURL might even be a low estimate.

kfrzcode 7y ago
$50k-100k seems a bit high for a bugfix.... else I'm desperately undervaluing my worth in salary negotiations
- Kalium 7y ago
  High for salary, yes. High for buying enterprise support on mission-critical software? Perhaps the value might be different.
  - jsty 7y ago
    I was about to comment that most customers might expect more support than a bugfix for a $100k support contract, then I remembered my last few interactions with enterprise software vendors. If anything, it'd probably exceed expectations.
  - kfrzcode 7y ago
    Good point - though I'd argue anything mission-critical should never rely on external SME contractors being hired to fix one-off bugs.. :shrug:
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  - drstewart 7y ago
    Enterprise support and "no badgering on ETAs" don't quite go together. I want to live in the fantasy world some of you live in where you expect corporations to cut you a $100k check, no strings attached.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - Kalium 7y ago
      ETAs and individual bounties, I think, are different in a subtle way. ETAs require a strong organziation that can deliver such things. Piecemeal support to fix one bug does not. Also, I've seen companies cut larger checks for sillier things with minimal conditions, so...
    - satvikpendem 7y ago
      They'll probably lose much more than $100k on the bug impacting their systems.
    - rhizome 7y ago
      It's not enterprise support, it's simply paying for priority and nobody would be forcing them to participate in this scheme anyway. And yes, this would be the only voice they get in the development process. Why shouldn't it be? Apple's had a 12 year free ride so far.
- manwe150 7y ago
  Nope, the bugfix is only $50. The other $49950 is for knowing which line to change. (adapted from old joke from https://allthetropes.fandom.com/wiki/Percussive_Maintenance https://allthetropes.fandom.com/wiki/Percussive_Maintenance) And in practice, it also "buys" you all of the other bug fixes and releases from helping to fund the developer. So while the bug itself might only take a day, the infrastructure around being in a position to do that takes much more time.
swlkr 7y ago
This is great, although I’d settle for $10k/bug. Of course this also incentivizes people to add bugs in on purpose
- rhizome 7y ago
  It's not a cobra problem. If bugs get added "on purpose," which is a ridiculously cynical opinion of Stenberg's ethics, people can fork it and maintain it themselves. $10K is way too cheap. I recommend putting some thought into the idea of business value.
gitgud 7y ago
Charging money to fix something because of who they are seems unethical to me... Maybe it's just capitalism, which is usually antithetical to open source free software... If they want it fixed, let them add resources to the project like submit a pull request, donations or charge people support fees for urgent bugs, which many OSS projects do...
- Nasrudith 7y ago
  Well at that point it isn't buying for getting it fixed but for attention and fast response. Anyone else could just do the fix themselves and submit it. The lack of gatekeeping is what keeps it ethical essentially - like the difference between "only Apple technicians" and "anyone capable".
  - tempWinHater 7y ago
    I would also add that "Apple technicians" is not a subset of "anyone capable".
- ClumsyPilot 7y ago
  Opensource projects have long lists of issues, some of them stay open for years. I presume cormpanies want it addressed quickly
- cortesoft 7y ago
  This isn't paying because of who they are, this is paying to be prioritized outside the normal process. They are 'adding resources to the project', in the form of money (which will hopefully draw in more developer time, another resource)
- rhizome 7y ago
  Charging money to fix something because of who they are seems unethical to me First of all, I believe that everything people do is according to some ethic, or set of criteria that motivates them, so there's no such thing as "unethical." Secondly, it's not charging money because of who they are, it's charging them because of what they have, which is money, which is a desire to have a bug fixed, and which is not expertise in doing so. Thirdly, charging money like this is not antithetical to free software, and as a matter of fact is promoted by FSF. Here they are dispensing with your argument in the first sentence: [1] Fourthly, if they were going to submit a PR they would already be doing so (and maybe they have), but as the story goes, the lion's share of coding is performed by Stenberg. PR's are free and money is also a resource. Why not put the resource in the place with the most expertise? In what way is the money I suggest not a donation or support fee? Lack of contracts to complicate things? Lack of tax writeoffs? These companies don't pay taxes anyway. 1. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html

kfrzcode 7y ago

$50k-100k seems a bit high for a bugfix.... else I'm desperately undervaluing my worth in salary negotiations

Kalium 7y ago
High for salary, yes. High for buying enterprise support on mission-critical software? Perhaps the value might be different.
- jsty 7y ago
  I was about to comment that most customers might expect more support than a bugfix for a $100k support contract, then I remembered my last few interactions with enterprise software vendors. If anything, it'd probably exceed expectations.
- kfrzcode 7y ago
  Good point - though I'd argue anything mission-critical should never rely on external SME contractors being hired to fix one-off bugs.. :shrug:
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- drstewart 7y ago
  Enterprise support and "no badgering on ETAs" don't quite go together. I want to live in the fantasy world some of you live in where you expect corporations to cut you a $100k check, no strings attached.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - Kalium 7y ago
    ETAs and individual bounties, I think, are different in a subtle way. ETAs require a strong organziation that can deliver such things. Piecemeal support to fix one bug does not. Also, I've seen companies cut larger checks for sillier things with minimal conditions, so...
  - satvikpendem 7y ago
    They'll probably lose much more than $100k on the bug impacting their systems.
  - rhizome 7y ago
    It's not enterprise support, it's simply paying for priority and nobody would be forcing them to participate in this scheme anyway. And yes, this would be the only voice they get in the development process. Why shouldn't it be? Apple's had a 12 year free ride so far.
manwe150 7y ago
Nope, the bugfix is only $50. The other $49950 is for knowing which line to change. (adapted from old joke from https://allthetropes.fandom.com/wiki/Percussive_Maintenance https://allthetropes.fandom.com/wiki/Percussive_Maintenance) And in practice, it also "buys" you all of the other bug fixes and releases from helping to fund the developer. So while the bug itself might only take a day, the infrastructure around being in a position to do that takes much more time.

swlkr 7y ago

This is great, although I’d settle for $10k/bug. Of course this also incentivizes people to add bugs in on purpose

rhizome 7y ago
It's not a cobra problem. If bugs get added "on purpose," which is a ridiculously cynical opinion of Stenberg's ethics, people can fork it and maintain it themselves. $10K is way too cheap. I recommend putting some thought into the idea of business value.

gitgud 7y ago

Charging money to fix something because of who they are seems unethical to me... Maybe it's just capitalism, which is usually antithetical to open source free software... If they want it fixed, let them add resources to the project like submit a pull request, donations or charge people support fees for urgent bugs, which many OSS projects do...

Nasrudith 7y ago
Well at that point it isn't buying for getting it fixed but for attention and fast response. Anyone else could just do the fix themselves and submit it. The lack of gatekeeping is what keeps it ethical essentially - like the difference between "only Apple technicians" and "anyone capable".
- tempWinHater 7y ago
  I would also add that "Apple technicians" is not a subset of "anyone capable".
ClumsyPilot 7y ago
Opensource projects have long lists of issues, some of them stay open for years. I presume cormpanies want it addressed quickly
cortesoft 7y ago
This isn't paying because of who they are, this is paying to be prioritized outside the normal process. They are 'adding resources to the project', in the form of money (which will hopefully draw in more developer time, another resource)
rhizome 7y ago
Charging money to fix something because of who they are seems unethical to me First of all, I believe that everything people do is according to some ethic, or set of criteria that motivates them, so there's no such thing as "unethical." Secondly, it's not charging money because of who they are, it's charging them because of what they have, which is money, which is a desire to have a bug fixed, and which is not expertise in doing so. Thirdly, charging money like this is not antithetical to free software, and as a matter of fact is promoted by FSF. Here they are dispensing with your argument in the first sentence: [1] Fourthly, if they were going to submit a PR they would already be doing so (and maybe they have), but as the story goes, the lion's share of coding is performed by Stenberg. PR's are free and money is also a resource. Why not put the resource in the place with the most expertise? In what way is the money I suggest not a donation or support fee? Lack of contracts to complicate things? Lack of tax writeoffs? These companies don't pay taxes anyway. 1. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html