31 ms·

I wonder if that’s not necessarily a negative thing. Much of the beauty of the open-source ecosystem comes from its (typical but not guaranteed) lack of explici

by otde 6y ago

I wonder if that’s not necessarily a negative thing. Much of the beauty of the open-source ecosystem comes from its (typical but not guaranteed) lack of explicit wealth incentives. It feels to me like the idea that wealth redistribution necessitates widespread poverty is almost purely speculative, though I’m happy to be corrected.

nlitened 6y ago
We could also say that much of the beauty of the open-source ecosystem comes from top 1% earners (software developers) having cushy jobs and some free time to invest in common good.
jandrewrogers 6y ago
I think open source is an example of how any set of incentives cuts both ways, it is just prioritizing different things. Incentives are offsetting; things like wealth incentives are often valuable to encourage people to do important things they otherwise would have no incentivize to do in open source. For example, a well-known issue with open source data infrastructure is that it often has much lower performance and efficiency than equivalent proprietary software. There are many dis-incentives in the open source ecosystem to producing software that is highly performant and efficient, not the least of which is development complexity and sophistication level required to contribute. Open source developers do not pay the operational cost of wasteful data infrastructure but they do pay the cost of their time, and prioritize accordingly. Proprietary data infrastructure is explicitly motivated by wealth incentives to be highly efficient, which is why companies invest in it even though open source equivalents exists. The relative wastefulness of open source in terms of computing resources is increasingly perceived as bad for the environment, so it isn't just a money motivation. Incentives are a powerful thing and it is evident that open source lacks incentives to produce some important outcomes.
- inimino 6y ago
  This sounds like a just-so story about incentives and open-source software, and seems to ignore some of the significant motivations actually at play, as well as some fairly glaringly obvious historical examples. What are the specific examples you have in mind here?
pretzelbutt 6y ago
The idea that our society must necessarily be based around wealth is what we need to move past. Open source and free software have demonstrated that wealth is not the only incentive that can drive progress and innovation. In fact, the incentive of wealth accumulation is frequently an obstacle to progress. We can make all manner of technical advances in medicine, food production, or energy generation, but while the primary determinant in decision making is whether an activity is profitable, that progress can be effectively nullified. If it's more profitable to withhold medical care, or destroy food, or burn coal, or exploit workers, or sell customer data, or compromise safety, what should we do? Do we need complex wealth redistribution regimes or could we perhaps rise above this fundamentally flawed and increasingly dangerous incentive of wealth?

by otde 6y ago

nlitened 6y ago

We could also say that much of the beauty of the open-source ecosystem comes from top 1% earners (software developers) having cushy jobs and some free time to invest in common good.

jandrewrogers 6y ago

I think open source is an example of how any set of incentives cuts both ways, it is just prioritizing different things. Incentives are offsetting; things like wealth incentives are often valuable to encourage people to do important things they otherwise would have no incentivize to do in open source. For example, a well-known issue with open source data infrastructure is that it often has much lower performance and efficiency than equivalent proprietary software. There are many dis-incentives in the open source ecosystem to producing software that is highly performant and efficient, not the least of which is development complexity and sophistication level required to contribute. Open source developers do not pay the operational cost of wasteful data infrastructure but they do pay the cost of their time, and prioritize accordingly. Proprietary data infrastructure is explicitly motivated by wealth incentives to be highly efficient, which is why companies invest in it even though open source equivalents exists. The relative wastefulness of open source in terms of computing resources is increasingly perceived as bad for the environment, so it isn't just a money motivation. Incentives are a powerful thing and it is evident that open source lacks incentives to produce some important outcomes.

inimino 6y ago
This sounds like a just-so story about incentives and open-source software, and seems to ignore some of the significant motivations actually at play, as well as some fairly glaringly obvious historical examples. What are the specific examples you have in mind here?

pretzelbutt 6y ago

The idea that our society must necessarily be based around wealth is what we need to move past. Open source and free software have demonstrated that wealth is not the only incentive that can drive progress and innovation. In fact, the incentive of wealth accumulation is frequently an obstacle to progress. We can make all manner of technical advances in medicine, food production, or energy generation, but while the primary determinant in decision making is whether an activity is profitable, that progress can be effectively nullified. If it's more profitable to withhold medical care, or destroy food, or burn coal, or exploit workers, or sell customer data, or compromise safety, what should we do? Do we need complex wealth redistribution regimes or could we perhaps rise above this fundamentally flawed and increasingly dangerous incentive of wealth?