4 ms·

> But it's for them to use it (else, what's the point ?). The point is to have the software yourself. If it helps somebody else, all the better - but, like bui

> But it's for them to use it (else, what's the point ?). The point is to have the software yourself. If it helps somebody else, all the better - but, like building a community, that's not necessarily the point.

notacoward 7y ago
> The point is to have the software yourself. That's certainly not true enough of the time to make such a general statement, and I contend it's mostly untrue. A lot of developers create OSS that they can't really use themselves. For example, I'm a maintainer for an OSS scale-out filesystem. I have no personal use for such a thing. The company that originally created it had no internal use for it, and the company that acquired them actively resisted its use internally. A lot of OSS has management or monitoring components, or integrations with other software, that the developers themselves don't use. Having the software yourself can't be a motive in these cases. Believe it or not, most OSS is written because the developers expect to make money from it and/or because they believe it will make the world a better place - not because they themselves use it.
- pgeorgi 7y ago
  Right, I should have phrased it better: it's about self-interest. That interest _can_ be use of the software for yourself, and you're right, it can be selling support for the software or in open core models, selling add-ons. I suppose "make the world a better place" can be a motivation as well (though I don't think it'll last very long for any individual unless they're RMS, maybe). There may be personal curiosity or education as motivation as well. I don't think percentages between the motivations even matter for what the presentation is about (because it certainly isn't about users that pay for service contracts). So there are transactional situations (support contract, other payments), there's "better world" idealism, and there's immediate self-interest ("I use this stuff myself"). Users being pushy on a communication medium demanding work from others with no fulfillment of these motivations that would back the demand doesn't even make the world a better place (pushy people != better world), so there's nothing in it for the devs. Which gets back to the point of the presentation: if you want something fixed, step in (do it yourself, pay somebody to do it for you, ...). You can ask nicely, and that might even work at times, but you're not entitled to anybody agreeing to that kind of one-sided transaction.
thrower123 7y ago
That's probably the only really sustainable way to have open source without making it into somebody's job. Make what you want or need for yourself, and share it with other people. But be under no obligation to place their needs over your own.

notacoward 7y ago

> The point is to have the software yourself. That's certainly not true enough of the time to make such a general statement, and I contend it's mostly untrue. A lot of developers create OSS that they can't really use themselves. For example, I'm a maintainer for an OSS scale-out filesystem. I have no personal use for such a thing. The company that originally created it had no internal use for it, and the company that acquired them actively resisted its use internally. A lot of OSS has management or monitoring components, or integrations with other software, that the developers themselves don't use. Having the software yourself can't be a motive in these cases. Believe it or not, most OSS is written because the developers expect to make money from it and/or because they believe it will make the world a better place - not because they themselves use it.

pgeorgi 7y ago
Right, I should have phrased it better: it's about self-interest. That interest _can_ be use of the software for yourself, and you're right, it can be selling support for the software or in open core models, selling add-ons. I suppose "make the world a better place" can be a motivation as well (though I don't think it'll last very long for any individual unless they're RMS, maybe). There may be personal curiosity or education as motivation as well. I don't think percentages between the motivations even matter for what the presentation is about (because it certainly isn't about users that pay for service contracts). So there are transactional situations (support contract, other payments), there's "better world" idealism, and there's immediate self-interest ("I use this stuff myself"). Users being pushy on a communication medium demanding work from others with no fulfillment of these motivations that would back the demand doesn't even make the world a better place (pushy people != better world), so there's nothing in it for the devs. Which gets back to the point of the presentation: if you want something fixed, step in (do it yourself, pay somebody to do it for you, ...). You can ask nicely, and that might even work at times, but you're not entitled to anybody agreeing to that kind of one-sided transaction.

thrower123 7y ago

That's probably the only really sustainable way to have open source without making it into somebody's job. Make what you want or need for yourself, and share it with other people. But be under no obligation to place their needs over your own.