4 ms·

> For example, maybe the upstream developers make a useful library and sell it in some form to downstream developers who find it valuable enough to pay. The ar

> For example, maybe the upstream developers make a useful library and sell it in some form to downstream developers who find it valuable enough to pay. The article is saying pin stuff for as long as possible, like the guy replying here who says the version of the logging tool he integrated one time 10 years ago is all he will ever want. Paid-for or FOSS, after his initial interaction 10 years ago, he is not going to *pay*, encourage, support, find bugs in or send patches to the upstreams. And that's the vast majority of users, me too when I look at the projects I uses and never contribute to. > Relying on libraries maintained by developers with those incentives might not be appropriate for downstream projects that require stability and longevity. That's a particularly sniffy approach to FOSS. You would have walked away from the now-dying Xorg back in the day? Gcc? If people don't contribute to the things they are dependent on, there is no reason to expect them to still be around when they do want more from them. From the FOSS project perspective these users do not directly manifest themselves in any useful way at all.

Silhouette 6y ago
That's a particularly sniffy approach to FOSS. FOSS is great. A lot of people have contributed a lot of value to society through making code they wrote freely available. The world is a better place for it, and I appreciate their efforts when something they've made helps me. None of that means it's a smart decision to build something important on a foundation that is likely to shift under you later. If people don't contribute to the things they are dependent on, there is no reason to expect them to still be around when they do want more from them. If you're relying on something where the developers' incentives are primarily about personal satisfaction and it's only a small team or solo developer then you have little reason to assume they will still be around anyway. Unless some software has become big enough to be an established community project or someone is developing it professionally, relying on it as a long-term dependency might be unwise. More specifically, either it already does what you need (or you're confident you can patch it to do so yourself), or it might need ongoing development but you have confidence in the support/maintenance model behind it, or you're taking a risk by relying on it.

Silhouette 6y ago

That's a particularly sniffy approach to FOSS. FOSS is great. A lot of people have contributed a lot of value to society through making code they wrote freely available. The world is a better place for it, and I appreciate their efforts when something they've made helps me. None of that means it's a smart decision to build something important on a foundation that is likely to shift under you later. If people don't contribute to the things they are dependent on, there is no reason to expect them to still be around when they do want more from them. If you're relying on something where the developers' incentives are primarily about personal satisfaction and it's only a small team or solo developer then you have little reason to assume they will still be around anyway. Unless some software has become big enough to be an established community project or someone is developing it professionally, relying on it as a long-term dependency might be unwise. More specifically, either it already does what you need (or you're confident you can patch it to do so yourself), or it might need ongoing development but you have confidence in the support/maintenance model behind it, or you're taking a risk by relying on it.