3 ms·

Lots of things couldn't survive on their own, but aren't failures at all. For example, we're currently subsidizing multiple vaccines for COVID-19 because it's

Lots of things couldn't survive on their own, but aren't failures at all. For example, we're currently subsidizing multiple vaccines for COVID-19 because it's important that we collectively take on the risk that a single one might fail. Those billions in spending to pay for something that might be worth $0 is worth it because it's likely at least some of the vaccines will be safe and effective. Sometimes things start out as unprofitable and then only later, because of those dollars invested, become profitable. Space, for example. Government investments in solar power have also been super important. Or, more relevant to Hacker News, how about ARPANET being funded by the military, and then later that funding going to the National Science Foundation? Eventually, of course, it got privatized.

jqpabc123 6y ago
COVID-19 is a national emergency, open source is not. Vaccines easily survive on their own merit in the marketplace. Government funding is being used to speed up the process and insure redundancy in case of failure. ARPANET is another questionable comparison. A world wide, failure proof network had never been done at the time so the military subsidized the basic research and development. Once the basic R&D was done, the funding ended. I would be inclined to support new, innovative R&D but I am not willing to pay taxes simply to clone existing commercial software.
- elicash 6y ago
  I'm not saying you should, for example, support changing federal procurement regulations to favor open source software (though the author makes a strong point). Or that you should favor tax incentives for them. I was taking issue with your broader principle that "asking for government support is really an admission of failure." In fact, subsidies can be incredibly valuable for the societies that collectively pay for them. I think it's best to evaluate on a case-by-case basis. This author has done a ton of research and so I didn't like it being dismissed out-of-hand on principle. Here's the paper linked from the piece about procurement (need a free account to access): https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3355486 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3355486 Also, for the record, vaccines are highly subsidized, particularly for children. Those subsidies are one of the best things we've ever done as a nation.

jqpabc123 6y ago

COVID-19 is a national emergency, open source is not. Vaccines easily survive on their own merit in the marketplace. Government funding is being used to speed up the process and insure redundancy in case of failure. ARPANET is another questionable comparison. A world wide, failure proof network had never been done at the time so the military subsidized the basic research and development. Once the basic R&D was done, the funding ended. I would be inclined to support new, innovative R&D but I am not willing to pay taxes simply to clone existing commercial software.

elicash 6y ago
I'm not saying you should, for example, support changing federal procurement regulations to favor open source software (though the author makes a strong point). Or that you should favor tax incentives for them. I was taking issue with your broader principle that "asking for government support is really an admission of failure." In fact, subsidies can be incredibly valuable for the societies that collectively pay for them. I think it's best to evaluate on a case-by-case basis. This author has done a ton of research and so I didn't like it being dismissed out-of-hand on principle. Here's the paper linked from the piece about procurement (need a free account to access): https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3355486 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3355486 Also, for the record, vaccines are highly subsidized, particularly for children. Those subsidies are one of the best things we've ever done as a nation.