4 ms·

But they demonstrably can allow for a sustainable project, the obvious example being the Linux Foundation. And if you admit to the existence of donations, then

But they demonstrably can allow for a sustainable project, the obvious example being the Linux Foundation. And if you admit to the existence of donations, then do you admit that you were wrong to say "open source folks don't want to pay for anything"?

pjmlp 7y ago
Since you brought up the Linux Foundation as an example, the large pool of contributions are from Fortune 500 happy to use Linux instead of paying for UNIX licenses. Which in any case only a tiny part of kernel contributors can live from.
- 9HZZRfNlpR 7y ago
  Most of the kernel is written by big companies?
  - pjmlp 7y ago
    Indeed, without them Linux would be another Minix clone.
- laughinghan 7y ago
  Tiny part? Your immediate preceding sentence observes that the large pool of kernel contributors live on salaries provided to them by Fortune 500 companies. Is that a roundabout way of admitting that you're wrong and open source can be sustainable?
  - pjmlp 7y ago
    Not even close, because those developers are employees from Fortune 500 companies in one way or the other, they are not being paid by other developers paying to use Linux based software as such.
    - laughinghan 7y ago
      I don't understand. "Not even close to sustainable", you say, then complete the sentence by describing the situation in which Linux has been and continues to be sustainable.
      - pjmlp 7y ago
        Here is the part you keep ignoring "other developers paying to use Linux based software".
        laughinghan 7y ago
        What is the relevance of that part? Your claim that open source projects can't be sustainable is straightforwardly false, regardless of whether there are any Linux developers who are payed by other developers in order to use Linux-based software. Similarly, your claim that "open source folks" don't value open source software as worth paying for is straightforwardly false, regardless of whether they pay out of their personal bank accounts or push their Fortune 500 employers to donate money and time (which every Fortune 500 calculates in terms of money).
dmitriid 7y ago
Linux Foundation is an obvious example of big corporations paying for the development of a project they rely on: most money comes from huge corporate membership fees, most code comes from salaried programmers at those corporations. Most devs though would balk at the idea of paying for Linux.
- laughinghan 7y ago
  Yes, big corporations like Google, who is perfectly capable of paying for osxfuse, too. Balk? You think the MBAs at those big corporations are pushing them to pay for Linux over the objections of the devs? No, devs don't balk, devs are the reason those companies are paying for Linux. What in the world do any of your points have to do with the discussion at hand? My parent, pjmlp, claimed that (1) open source can't be sustainable because (2) open source supporters don't value open source work as being worth paying for, both of which are contradicted by the incontrovertible facts that (1) sustainable open source projects exist and (2) they're sustainable because of open source supporters who pay for it. Corporate supporters, yes, but corporations are composed of people, and corporate supporters of open source are only that way because their "open source folk".
  - dmitriid 7y ago
    - There are very few sustainable opensource projects. - Of those which are, such as Linux, they are sustainable not because community cares about them (they might or might not) or because community pays for them (they might or might not), but because corporations find enough vested in them to support them (through money and/or people). I highly doubt Linux Foundation is sustainable without corporate sponsors. - If you ask a typical dev to pay for a Linux distribution, they will balk at it. A one-off donation? Maybe. And that's Linux, a major and a clearly expensive project. How many projects are there that we take for granted? How many of them are sustained by the oh-so-great-and-generous open source community? Dozens? Less? There's a very clear division: - Strategic projects with vested interests get picked up my huge corporations (or started by them). - A few lucky projects get enough traction to be able to live off donations whole working on them full time. - The absolute vast majority of all the rest can and do survive only because devs can afford to work on them. As soon as they can't, good bye development and support. Edit: fixing some autocorrect mistakes.

pjmlp 7y ago

Since you brought up the Linux Foundation as an example, the large pool of contributions are from Fortune 500 happy to use Linux instead of paying for UNIX licenses. Which in any case only a tiny part of kernel contributors can live from.

9HZZRfNlpR 7y ago
Most of the kernel is written by big companies?
- pjmlp 7y ago
  Indeed, without them Linux would be another Minix clone.
laughinghan 7y ago
Tiny part? Your immediate preceding sentence observes that the large pool of kernel contributors live on salaries provided to them by Fortune 500 companies. Is that a roundabout way of admitting that you're wrong and open source can be sustainable?
- pjmlp 7y ago
  Not even close, because those developers are employees from Fortune 500 companies in one way or the other, they are not being paid by other developers paying to use Linux based software as such.
  - laughinghan 7y ago
    I don't understand. "Not even close to sustainable", you say, then complete the sentence by describing the situation in which Linux has been and continues to be sustainable.
    - pjmlp 7y ago
      Here is the part you keep ignoring "other developers paying to use Linux based software".
      - laughinghan 7y ago
        What is the relevance of that part? Your claim that open source projects can't be sustainable is straightforwardly false, regardless of whether there are any Linux developers who are payed by other developers in order to use Linux-based software. Similarly, your claim that "open source folks" don't value open source software as worth paying for is straightforwardly false, regardless of whether they pay out of their personal bank accounts or push their Fortune 500 employers to donate money and time (which every Fortune 500 calculates in terms of money).

dmitriid 7y ago

Linux Foundation is an obvious example of big corporations paying for the development of a project they rely on: most money comes from huge corporate membership fees, most code comes from salaried programmers at those corporations. Most devs though would balk at the idea of paying for Linux.

laughinghan 7y ago
Yes, big corporations like Google, who is perfectly capable of paying for osxfuse, too. Balk? You think the MBAs at those big corporations are pushing them to pay for Linux over the objections of the devs? No, devs don't balk, devs are the reason those companies are paying for Linux. What in the world do any of your points have to do with the discussion at hand? My parent, pjmlp, claimed that (1) open source can't be sustainable because (2) open source supporters don't value open source work as being worth paying for, both of which are contradicted by the incontrovertible facts that (1) sustainable open source projects exist and (2) they're sustainable because of open source supporters who pay for it. Corporate supporters, yes, but corporations are composed of people, and corporate supporters of open source are only that way because their "open source folk".
- dmitriid 7y ago
  - There are very few sustainable opensource projects. - Of those which are, such as Linux, they are sustainable not because community cares about them (they might or might not) or because community pays for them (they might or might not), but because corporations find enough vested in them to support them (through money and/or people). I highly doubt Linux Foundation is sustainable without corporate sponsors. - If you ask a typical dev to pay for a Linux distribution, they will balk at it. A one-off donation? Maybe. And that's Linux, a major and a clearly expensive project. How many projects are there that we take for granted? How many of them are sustained by the oh-so-great-and-generous open source community? Dozens? Less? There's a very clear division: - Strategic projects with vested interests get picked up my huge corporations (or started by them). - A few lucky projects get enough traction to be able to live off donations whole working on them full time. - The absolute vast majority of all the rest can and do survive only because devs can afford to work on them. As soon as they can't, good bye development and support. Edit: fixing some autocorrect mistakes.