4 ms·

This is quite issue with any big product - open source never found widely applicable model of operating that isn't dependent on some companies. Linux relies he

by Ginden 5y ago

This is quite issue with any big product - open source never found widely applicable model of operating that isn't dependent on some companies. Linux relies heavily on corporations using it. Gecko is dead without Mozilla - if Mozilla bankrupts, no one has enough manpower to develop Gecko. Even if code is GPL-licensed and in ongoing development, main contributor can easily force their design choices on downstream forks. If you redesign some system, downstream forks have to reimplement their changes on top of refactored code. And they don't have enough manpower for that. Well, governance of open source is probably not solvable, like most of human relations.

skohan 5y ago
The problem is when an open source project is owned and controlled by one large player. It's much healthier to have diverse stakeholders with different interests, none of which is completely in control, as is the case with Linux.
- CyanLite4 5y ago
  JetBrains did their own Hot Reload feature for Linux. The community is working as it should. The problem is everyone wants premium features for free. HotReload is a new feature, existing folks don’t have it now. If you want it on Linux, it’s going to cost $13 a month for a Rider license. Otherwise, keep developing without HotReload as devs have been for the past 5 years for free.
- Ginden 5y ago
  When I was talking about "unsolvable", I meant there is no single "best way to do it". All choices have tradeoffs. "One large player" can make hard, but neccesary choices. Multiple stakeholders can have conflicting interests, so they can stick with conservative way. One large player can use its control in ways detrimental to users. Multiple stakeholders can go with incremental changes that benefit everyone involved. There is no silver bullet.
  - skohan 5y ago
    Idk I get what you are saying, but at least for me personally, if I am investing in making something part of my workflow, it makes me really uncomfortable knowing it's fate is in the hands of only one corporation who's interests can easily become un-aligned with my own. Slow progress can be frustrating, but it's better than being left out in the cold from one day to another.
simonblack 5y ago
Linux relies heavily on corporations using it. Nope. Linux users care that they use Linux. They don't care if anybody else happens to use it or doesn't. There's no 'Linux Corporation' that has to maintain sales to survive. What people prefer is not a popularity contest. If that was the case, looking at it from a cars analogy, nobody would ever buy 'unpopular' cars like Lamborginis or even Mercedes, they'd only buy Fords.

by Ginden 5y ago

skohan 5y ago

The problem is when an open source project is owned and controlled by one large player. It's much healthier to have diverse stakeholders with different interests, none of which is completely in control, as is the case with Linux.

CyanLite4 5y ago
JetBrains did their own Hot Reload feature for Linux. The community is working as it should. The problem is everyone wants premium features for free. HotReload is a new feature, existing folks don’t have it now. If you want it on Linux, it’s going to cost $13 a month for a Rider license. Otherwise, keep developing without HotReload as devs have been for the past 5 years for free.
Ginden 5y ago
When I was talking about "unsolvable", I meant there is no single "best way to do it". All choices have tradeoffs. "One large player" can make hard, but neccesary choices. Multiple stakeholders can have conflicting interests, so they can stick with conservative way. One large player can use its control in ways detrimental to users. Multiple stakeholders can go with incremental changes that benefit everyone involved. There is no silver bullet.
- skohan 5y ago
  Idk I get what you are saying, but at least for me personally, if I am investing in making something part of my workflow, it makes me really uncomfortable knowing it's fate is in the hands of only one corporation who's interests can easily become un-aligned with my own. Slow progress can be frustrating, but it's better than being left out in the cold from one day to another.

simonblack 5y ago

Linux relies heavily on corporations using it. Nope. Linux users care that they use Linux. They don't care if anybody else happens to use it or doesn't. There's no 'Linux Corporation' that has to maintain sales to survive. What people prefer is not a popularity contest. If that was the case, looking at it from a cars analogy, nobody would ever buy 'unpopular' cars like Lamborginis or even Mercedes, they'd only buy Fords.