3 ms·
Better even: design it to be self-hostable from scratch. Edit: by making it a self-contained executable, a .deb or even a set of ansible scripts. I understand
by berkes 6y ago
Better even: design it to be self-hostable from scratch. Edit: by making it a self-contained executable, a .deb or even a set of ansible scripts.
I understand that some complex interconnected ball-of-spaghetti of microservices makes little sense to open-source, b/c no-one can run it.
But that is essentially saying: we never wanted people to run it themselves, and now we are at a point that no-one can run it, so why bother?
- madeofpalk 6y agoSure, there's "even better" ways to go above what they did, but it seems to be than an open source company would at least by default develop open source software. They had to have actively chosen to build this closed-source software, no.
- berkes 6y agoI agree entirely. My point was only that I expect an company like Canonical to not just open source everything, but to design it in such a way that it is useful for third parties. To make the distinction with "open source waste", where companies Open Source the software they no longer want, maintain or monetize.