5 ms·

Whenever I complain about any piece of OSS, I get told to submit a pull request or fork it on my own. If people are that concerned about MS having influence ove

Whenever I complain about any piece of OSS, I get told to submit a pull request or fork it on my own. If people are that concerned about MS having influence over Blender, why don’t they just fork it and maintain their own branch? That’s the point of OSS right?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
cle 6y ago
Theoretically sure you can "just fork it". In practice, for complex software, it carries enormous cost. In that case "just fork it" means "organize dozens of engineers willing to volunteer their time (or pay them)". For software complex enough, forking just isn't a feasible option.
- freehunter 6y ago
  And now we see why big companies are willing to pay the Blender team to continue development.
  - cle 6y ago
    That was never a mystery to begin with.
    - freehunter 6y ago
      I’m having a very difficult time reconciling your initial post that sounded like you were unhappy that Microsoft was paying Blender developers with your statement that it can’t be forked because it requires too much money to develop followed by your conclusion that there’s no mystery to why big companies pay open source contributors. Either Blender is so big that it can’t be maintained without the financial support of big businesses, or the financial support of big businesses are a negative influence on OSS projects. Which one is it?
      - cle 6y ago
        > Either Blender is so big that it can’t be maintained without the financial support of big businesses, or the financial support of big businesses are a negative influence on OSS projects. Which one is it? It can be both. That’s what my original point was. I’m not criticizing Microsoft or disagreeing with this arrangement. Other commenters are assuming this false dichotomy as well, which I think is invalid. A company can certainly support an OSS project financially, while influencing it in ways that harm competitors and users. I have no opinion on Microsoft’s motivation, but users and competitors would be wise to consider what mechanisms are in place to protect their interests as well.
dvfjsdhgfv 6y ago
In theory, yes. In practice, many people hate certain privacy-related aspects of Chrome, so someone created an ungoogled version. You'd think it would become an instant hit, right? Wrong: most people on HN commented they would never install a browser built by a random person. It's paradoxical but this is how things are. You'd need to have a very particular position in order to be successful as a fork (e.g. MariaDB, LibreOffice). Most forks just die out as not even their creator uses them.
- boogies 6y ago
  Not to mention that Chromium is massive and complex and unwanted parts of the code have been found and removed long after they were added https://archive.is/4VijY https://archive.is/4VijY.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

cle 6y ago

Theoretically sure you can "just fork it". In practice, for complex software, it carries enormous cost. In that case "just fork it" means "organize dozens of engineers willing to volunteer their time (or pay them)". For software complex enough, forking just isn't a feasible option.

freehunter 6y ago
And now we see why big companies are willing to pay the Blender team to continue development.
- cle 6y ago
  That was never a mystery to begin with.
  - freehunter 6y ago
    I’m having a very difficult time reconciling your initial post that sounded like you were unhappy that Microsoft was paying Blender developers with your statement that it can’t be forked because it requires too much money to develop followed by your conclusion that there’s no mystery to why big companies pay open source contributors. Either Blender is so big that it can’t be maintained without the financial support of big businesses, or the financial support of big businesses are a negative influence on OSS projects. Which one is it?
    - cle 6y ago
      > Either Blender is so big that it can’t be maintained without the financial support of big businesses, or the financial support of big businesses are a negative influence on OSS projects. Which one is it? It can be both. That’s what my original point was. I’m not criticizing Microsoft or disagreeing with this arrangement. Other commenters are assuming this false dichotomy as well, which I think is invalid. A company can certainly support an OSS project financially, while influencing it in ways that harm competitors and users. I have no opinion on Microsoft’s motivation, but users and competitors would be wise to consider what mechanisms are in place to protect their interests as well.

dvfjsdhgfv 6y ago

In theory, yes. In practice, many people hate certain privacy-related aspects of Chrome, so someone created an ungoogled version. You'd think it would become an instant hit, right? Wrong: most people on HN commented they would never install a browser built by a random person. It's paradoxical but this is how things are. You'd need to have a very particular position in order to be successful as a fork (e.g. MariaDB, LibreOffice). Most forks just die out as not even their creator uses them.

boogies 6y ago
Not to mention that Chromium is massive and complex and unwanted parts of the code have been found and removed long after they were added https://archive.is/4VijY https://archive.is/4VijY.