3 ms·

The social contract of open source

16 points by azhenley 6y ago

marcus_holmes 6y ago
I'm totally behind this from the maintainer's point of view. I always have some confusion about the whole ecosystem, though. Let me use Linux as an example...[0] I use Linux as my OS. I totally understand this is a free gift, and if the Linux maintainers decide to make it not work with my hardware, or my use case, then I have no right to complain about that. But if I then choose to use Linux to run my work servers on, knowing that at any time the maintainers could decide to not support that, then that's on me. I can't make any guarantees to anyone about the performance or reliability of my system, because I can't make any promises about what the Linux team are going to do with their system. I see people write whole mission-critical systems that include OS libraries that depend on a single maintainer [1]. With no thought to what happens to/for that OS project, no thought of donating to it, or even tracking that the maintainer is still the same person and it hasn't been sold to a malware author (to name one of many bad things that could happen). Why do we do this? Are we worried about this? I kinda am... should I be? What can we do about it? [0]Possibly a poor example, because the Linux "project" is too big, too widely supported, and has too much momentum to change this quickly. Substitute any other OS project for this if it doesn't strike true. [1]Obligatory XKCD comic: https://xkcd.com/2347/ https://xkcd.com/2347/
- selfhoster11 6y ago
  > I see people write whole mission-critical systems that include OS libraries that depend on a single maintainer [1]. With no thought to what happens to/for that OS project, no thought of donating to it, or even tracking that the maintainer is still the same person and it hasn't been sold to a malware author (to name one of many bad things that could happen). I don't see how that's different from commercial software, really. If the random 3-person operation from Nebraska that supplied you with a PLC controller goes out of business 3 years down the line and you need support, you're SOL either way. Same with larger vendors too: if Microsoft decides to cut a Word feature that you've built your entire business around, you're dead in the water. I think the moral is that arrangements have to be made with the appropriate experts if you want something to remain available.

16 points by azhenley 6y ago

I'm totally behind this from the maintainer's point of view. I always have some confusion about the whole ecosystem, though. Let me use Linux as an example...[0] I use Linux as my OS. I totally understand this is a free gift, and if the Linux maintainers decide to make it not work with my hardware, or my use case, then I have no right to complain about that. But if I then choose to use Linux to run my work servers on, knowing that at any time the maintainers could decide to not support that, then that's on me. I can't make any guarantees to anyone about the performance or reliability of my system, because I can't make any promises about what the Linux team are going to do with their system. I see people write whole mission-critical systems that include OS libraries that depend on a single maintainer [1]. With no thought to what happens to/for that OS project, no thought of donating to it, or even tracking that the maintainer is still the same person and it hasn't been sold to a malware author (to name one of many bad things that could happen). Why do we do this? Are we worried about this? I kinda am... should I be? What can we do about it? [0]Possibly a poor example, because the Linux "project" is too big, too widely supported, and has too much momentum to change this quickly. Substitute any other OS project for this if it doesn't strike true. [1]Obligatory XKCD comic: https://xkcd.com/2347/ https://xkcd.com/2347/

selfhoster11 6y ago
> I see people write whole mission-critical systems that include OS libraries that depend on a single maintainer [1]. With no thought to what happens to/for that OS project, no thought of donating to it, or even tracking that the maintainer is still the same person and it hasn't been sold to a malware author (to name one of many bad things that could happen). I don't see how that's different from commercial software, really. If the random 3-person operation from Nebraska that supplied you with a PLC controller goes out of business 3 years down the line and you need support, you're SOL either way. Same with larger vendors too: if Microsoft decides to cut a Word feature that you've built your entire business around, you're dead in the water. I think the moral is that arrangements have to be made with the appropriate experts if you want something to remain available.