7 ms·

Re the author of "open source is broken": The irony of bashing open source on a websiate using systems/code/infra containing thousands of open source lines of c

by gtsop 5y ago

Re the author of "open source is broken": The irony of bashing open source on a websiate using systems/code/infra containing thousands of open source lines of code which I am sure he hasn't paid for... has probably escaped his attention. Honestly, I am not sure why there is an argument anymore. Let people write or use free or proprietary software as they see fit. You all know the pros, you all know the cons, make a decision and god's speed, live your life. I side with the free software. You do you.

xena 5y ago
As the author of that article, I am starting to prefer they/them pronouns. It would be nice if you could update your comment to refer to me correctly, however this is not a demand. There is a lot more happening behind the scenes than you know of, I make a tiny fraction of my donations public knowledge.
- KronisLV 5y ago
  Edit: another person pointed out that the actual comment sounds like an ad hominem, which i do not condone. However, some of the phrasing made me think, hence the question (more clarification below). > The irony of bashing open source on a website using systems/code/infra containing thousands of open source lines of code which I am sure they haven't paid for... has probably escaped their attention. Hey, what are your thoughts on the OP's argument, though? I read your article and it did seem to have plenty of truth to it, much like other articles that i've read in the past: https://staltz.com/software-below-the-poverty-line.html https://staltz.com/software-below-the-poverty-line.html Personally, i use a lot of open source software and i definitely won't pay for most of it, many people out there won't pay for any of it. I don't find that ironic, i find it sad. There is no obligation or anything to encourage anyone to donate to the authors, most people don't care. If i went to work on Monday and suggested that we as a company throw money at open source, i'd probably be looked at funny. In the company, near the holidays we have an initiative where employees vote for charities and each vote gets 100 EUR donated towards them... but curiously, no one even considers something like that for open source projects, despite there being hundreds if not thousands of those in their dependencies. I think it's probably a cultural issue to some degree, simple psychology otherwise.
  - jodrellblank 5y ago
    > Hey, what are your thoughts on the OP's argument, though? An ad-hom insult doesn't make an argument. OP isn't bashing open source, OP is bashing for-profit companies using it without contributing as an overall system, and OP's website isn't a for-profit company, so even the "OP is a dumb hypocrite" isn't only an insult, it's also wrong. > "There is no obligation or anything to encourage anyone to donate to the authors, most people don't care." My long term simple answer to American's "tipping problem"[1] is that if you want money, charge money. This emotional manipulation guilt tripping "you don't have to pay, it's free" "my children, think of my dying starving family, I need money" "oh but it's free honestly I do it to contribute to others" "but listen to the crying of my wife as she scrapes together the last of our posessions to take to the pawn shop" "no really, I encourage everyone to make and use free software (but you should FEEL BAD if you do what I encourage)" "but it's free, check out that license" "I'm only saying I was hoping you would behave like a decent person and not take advantage of me while I lie about my motives to your face and emotionally manipulate you" "btw don't even think of holding me responsible for any problems in the code, I disclaim all responsibility to the maximum amount permitted by law and offer no support for any problems" is just not a good or honest way to go about things. You want money, charge money. Code as an employee, be a consultant, be indipendent and sell your thing. You need money, charge money, there's multiple ways to do it, people have been doing it for years. Why aren't you able to charge money? At least partly because of all the people giving away the equivalent for free. Why would someone pay for your library when they could get a free one? If guilt tripping is the only answer, you need a better answer. If I plant a tree for everyone to have a bit more oxygen in the atmosphee, will you pay me for the oxygen you're using from my efforts? Of course not. [1] that's not to say I don't tip, it's to say I hate the design of the system and think it leaves the majority worse off and far more stressed, so the minority of attractive people in rich areas come out far ahead.
    - KronisLV 5y ago
      > An ad-hom insult doesn't make an argument. OP isn't bashing open source, OP is bashing for-profit companies using it without contributing as an overall system, and OP's website isn't a for-profit company, so even the "OP is a dumb hypocrite" isn't only an insult, it's also wrong. I do agree that ad hominems are bad and that OP is maybe conflating bringing attention to problems with open source with actually being opposed to open source, which is definitely not the same thing! Lots of criticism may come from a position of wanting to improve everything. However, my more charitable interpretation of the original message would be along the lines of: "Open source seems to work, since you can post this criticism while utilizing a lot of open source technologies." And that's why i felt like creating my response/question above (apologies if that wasn't clear enough), since i'm surprised myself that we have as much working open source software in the first place, given how underfunded and underappreciated many of the oftentimes critical projects are. :( The bit about tipping is an interesting one - somehow many of the waiters in the USA aren't paid a living wage but instead have to rely on the patrons of the establishment to tip them. On one hand, that seems incredibly wrong to me (and unthinkable of in certain countries), however at the same time that implies that surely it's possible to somehow ingrain tipping or similar monetary actions into a culture to the point where it's not viewed as something outrageous by the denizens of said culture. How did tipping even become a thing? Why isn't tipping a thing in more industries (hopefully sans the abusive wage practices)? Why did "npm fund" become a thing just a number of years ago but was never really successful? https://dev.to/ruyadorno/npm-6-13-0-7f3 https://dev.to/ruyadorno/npm-6-13-0-7f3 Why do most corporations stop at extracting lists of dependencies in their projects so they don't get sued and don't have to release their codebases to the public, as opposed to actually funding the people on whose work they depend on? > You want money, charge money. Code as an employee, be a consultant, be indipendent and sell your thing. You need money, charge money, there's multiple ways to do it, people have been doing it for years. Why aren't you able to charge money? At least partly because of all the people giving away the equivalent for free. Why would someone pay for your library when they could get a free one? If guilt tripping is the only answer, you need a better answer. Are we incapable as humanity on a large scale to give money willingly to others, when we benefit from their work? > If I plant a tree for everyone to have a bit more oxygen in the atmosphere, will you pay me for the oxygen you're using from my efforts? Of course not. Why not? If i wasn't under constant stress about my financial future, scraping by to survive in an economy that doesn't feel viable long term (especially given how i receive cents on the dollar for my work in the grand scheme of things) and aggressively saving of what little i earn, while knowing that i have slim chances of ever having real estate of my own (given that currently that's only viable after decades of work, even if that), i'd be more than happy to pay someone for a tree or a well planted forest, if it'd be presented to me as something i can do easily. Just look at: https://teamtrees.org/ https://teamtrees.org/ If there is not a viable solution to the open source funding problem, i don't think open source has a future that's all that bright, at least outside of corporate backed projects or privileged people (e.g. those not under constant financial stress) who can afford the time and effort to put into it. Edit: apologies if that's an emotional reaction that's maybe not entirely rational, but another post here on HN also made me think: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29525286 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29525286 In short: It feels like open source developers should be paid, regardless of everything else.
- Kye 5y ago
  That's why I default to they/them unless I have some indication otherwise. One time a dude went off on me for it, and I broke his brain by suggesting pronouns in his bio would have saved him a public freakout. I always found the prescription to default to masculine terms as a default gender neutral awfully suspicious even before I knew I was nonbinary.
  - gtsop 5y ago
    I usually do they/them nowadays, but habbit is hard one to break and i cant edit the comment atm. I hope the author understands that my pronouns don't bare any judgemental meaning
    - xena 5y ago
      I have no reason to judge you ^^, just trying to be polite.
- gtsop 5y ago
  Yes you are right, i apologise, will update. Edit: it seems like i cannot edit it anymore, but it was not meant to be disrespectful or on purpose.
Kye 5y ago
The author would be accused of having no standing to criticize open source if they didn't use it. There is no viable move with the mindset you display here.
- dnautics 5y ago
  no, the author could have used open source and then moved off for principled reasons that people weren't paying their OSS contributors, made predictions about what would come to be, and then be pot shooting at the FOSS community from a distance. Or the author could aggressively pay every single OSS contributor they are using, with receipts... Etc, etc.
- gtsop 5y ago
  I replied to the same argument in a different comment. There is literally a thousand ways to do it. Eg - Post on twitter/facebook - pay for a proprietary stack - pay for an open source stack (donate) - print stuff and hand them out in person (half joking, but you get the point i hope)
bigbillheck 5y ago
> The irony of bashing open source... This is literally the 'yet you participate in society' argument.
- dnautics 5y ago
  Sure, you don't have the option of not using open source software for some of the cisco and arista switches and routers on nexthops over the internet, but you certainly CAN use paid-for closed-source software (from operating system up to webserver) on a server that you set up, in a colo that you pay for, to run your blog.
- gtsop 5y ago
  No, this is a falacy. As a living being you don't really stand any chance of not participating in society in some way or another. However the author has the following options: - pay for proprietary stack of technology to publish their website - pay for the open source software they are using (donate) - not do any websites and publish their opinion on other social media or even physical print. Write a papper, print flyers - do literally nothing All of these are actual viable options. Not participating in society kinda isn't an option if you wanna live
  - badsectoracula 5y ago
    Is it even possible to completely avoid open source software nowadays though? Windows itself might not be completely open source but it has a bunch of open source components and/or is based on open source components (even the TCP/IP stack has its roots on BSD :-P). Even your CPU (especially Intel with its IME using Minix) and UEFI might have some open source code. Perhaps if you find some 20 year old PC with an obscure proprietary operating system that has its own network stack you could do it. Though that "proprietary purity" will break down as soon as you step out of that PC box and connect it to a router or whatever since chances are it will run open source software and your purely proprietary signal will be contaminated way before reaching some end user's browser :-P
    - gtsop 5y ago

by gtsop 5y ago

xena 5y ago

As the author of that article, I am starting to prefer they/them pronouns. It would be nice if you could update your comment to refer to me correctly, however this is not a demand. There is a lot more happening behind the scenes than you know of, I make a tiny fraction of my donations public knowledge.

KronisLV 5y ago
Edit: another person pointed out that the actual comment sounds like an ad hominem, which i do not condone. However, some of the phrasing made me think, hence the question (more clarification below). > The irony of bashing open source on a website using systems/code/infra containing thousands of open source lines of code which I am sure they haven't paid for... has probably escaped their attention. Hey, what are your thoughts on the OP's argument, though? I read your article and it did seem to have plenty of truth to it, much like other articles that i've read in the past: https://staltz.com/software-below-the-poverty-line.html https://staltz.com/software-below-the-poverty-line.html Personally, i use a lot of open source software and i definitely won't pay for most of it, many people out there won't pay for any of it. I don't find that ironic, i find it sad. There is no obligation or anything to encourage anyone to donate to the authors, most people don't care. If i went to work on Monday and suggested that we as a company throw money at open source, i'd probably be looked at funny. In the company, near the holidays we have an initiative where employees vote for charities and each vote gets 100 EUR donated towards them... but curiously, no one even considers something like that for open source projects, despite there being hundreds if not thousands of those in their dependencies. I think it's probably a cultural issue to some degree, simple psychology otherwise.
- jodrellblank 5y ago
  > Hey, what are your thoughts on the OP's argument, though? An ad-hom insult doesn't make an argument. OP isn't bashing open source, OP is bashing for-profit companies using it without contributing as an overall system, and OP's website isn't a for-profit company, so even the "OP is a dumb hypocrite" isn't only an insult, it's also wrong. > "There is no obligation or anything to encourage anyone to donate to the authors, most people don't care." My long term simple answer to American's "tipping problem"[1] is that if you want money, charge money. This emotional manipulation guilt tripping "you don't have to pay, it's free" "my children, think of my dying starving family, I need money" "oh but it's free honestly I do it to contribute to others" "but listen to the crying of my wife as she scrapes together the last of our posessions to take to the pawn shop" "no really, I encourage everyone to make and use free software (but you should FEEL BAD if you do what I encourage)" "but it's free, check out that license" "I'm only saying I was hoping you would behave like a decent person and not take advantage of me while I lie about my motives to your face and emotionally manipulate you" "btw don't even think of holding me responsible for any problems in the code, I disclaim all responsibility to the maximum amount permitted by law and offer no support for any problems" is just not a good or honest way to go about things. You want money, charge money. Code as an employee, be a consultant, be indipendent and sell your thing. You need money, charge money, there's multiple ways to do it, people have been doing it for years. Why aren't you able to charge money? At least partly because of all the people giving away the equivalent for free. Why would someone pay for your library when they could get a free one? If guilt tripping is the only answer, you need a better answer. If I plant a tree for everyone to have a bit more oxygen in the atmosphee, will you pay me for the oxygen you're using from my efforts? Of course not. [1] that's not to say I don't tip, it's to say I hate the design of the system and think it leaves the majority worse off and far more stressed, so the minority of attractive people in rich areas come out far ahead.
  - KronisLV 5y ago
    > An ad-hom insult doesn't make an argument. OP isn't bashing open source, OP is bashing for-profit companies using it without contributing as an overall system, and OP's website isn't a for-profit company, so even the "OP is a dumb hypocrite" isn't only an insult, it's also wrong. I do agree that ad hominems are bad and that OP is maybe conflating bringing attention to problems with open source with actually being opposed to open source, which is definitely not the same thing! Lots of criticism may come from a position of wanting to improve everything. However, my more charitable interpretation of the original message would be along the lines of: "Open source seems to work, since you can post this criticism while utilizing a lot of open source technologies." And that's why i felt like creating my response/question above (apologies if that wasn't clear enough), since i'm surprised myself that we have as much working open source software in the first place, given how underfunded and underappreciated many of the oftentimes critical projects are. :( The bit about tipping is an interesting one - somehow many of the waiters in the USA aren't paid a living wage but instead have to rely on the patrons of the establishment to tip them. On one hand, that seems incredibly wrong to me (and unthinkable of in certain countries), however at the same time that implies that surely it's possible to somehow ingrain tipping or similar monetary actions into a culture to the point where it's not viewed as something outrageous by the denizens of said culture. How did tipping even become a thing? Why isn't tipping a thing in more industries (hopefully sans the abusive wage practices)? Why did "npm fund" become a thing just a number of years ago but was never really successful? https://dev.to/ruyadorno/npm-6-13-0-7f3 https://dev.to/ruyadorno/npm-6-13-0-7f3 Why do most corporations stop at extracting lists of dependencies in their projects so they don't get sued and don't have to release their codebases to the public, as opposed to actually funding the people on whose work they depend on? > You want money, charge money. Code as an employee, be a consultant, be indipendent and sell your thing. You need money, charge money, there's multiple ways to do it, people have been doing it for years. Why aren't you able to charge money? At least partly because of all the people giving away the equivalent for free. Why would someone pay for your library when they could get a free one? If guilt tripping is the only answer, you need a better answer. Are we incapable as humanity on a large scale to give money willingly to others, when we benefit from their work? > If I plant a tree for everyone to have a bit more oxygen in the atmosphere, will you pay me for the oxygen you're using from my efforts? Of course not. Why not? If i wasn't under constant stress about my financial future, scraping by to survive in an economy that doesn't feel viable long term (especially given how i receive cents on the dollar for my work in the grand scheme of things) and aggressively saving of what little i earn, while knowing that i have slim chances of ever having real estate of my own (given that currently that's only viable after decades of work, even if that), i'd be more than happy to pay someone for a tree or a well planted forest, if it'd be presented to me as something i can do easily. Just look at: https://teamtrees.org/ https://teamtrees.org/ If there is not a viable solution to the open source funding problem, i don't think open source has a future that's all that bright, at least outside of corporate backed projects or privileged people (e.g. those not under constant financial stress) who can afford the time and effort to put into it. Edit: apologies if that's an emotional reaction that's maybe not entirely rational, but another post here on HN also made me think: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29525286 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29525286 In short: It feels like open source developers should be paid, regardless of everything else.
Kye 5y ago
That's why I default to they/them unless I have some indication otherwise. One time a dude went off on me for it, and I broke his brain by suggesting pronouns in his bio would have saved him a public freakout. I always found the prescription to default to masculine terms as a default gender neutral awfully suspicious even before I knew I was nonbinary.
- gtsop 5y ago
  I usually do they/them nowadays, but habbit is hard one to break and i cant edit the comment atm. I hope the author understands that my pronouns don't bare any judgemental meaning
  - xena 5y ago
    I have no reason to judge you ^^, just trying to be polite.
gtsop 5y ago
Yes you are right, i apologise, will update. Edit: it seems like i cannot edit it anymore, but it was not meant to be disrespectful or on purpose.

Kye 5y ago

The author would be accused of having no standing to criticize open source if they didn't use it. There is no viable move with the mindset you display here.

dnautics 5y ago
no, the author could have used open source and then moved off for principled reasons that people weren't paying their OSS contributors, made predictions about what would come to be, and then be pot shooting at the FOSS community from a distance. Or the author could aggressively pay every single OSS contributor they are using, with receipts... Etc, etc.
gtsop 5y ago
I replied to the same argument in a different comment. There is literally a thousand ways to do it. Eg - Post on twitter/facebook - pay for a proprietary stack - pay for an open source stack (donate) - print stuff and hand them out in person (half joking, but you get the point i hope)

bigbillheck 5y ago

> The irony of bashing open source... This is literally the 'yet you participate in society' argument.

dnautics 5y ago
Sure, you don't have the option of not using open source software for some of the cisco and arista switches and routers on nexthops over the internet, but you certainly CAN use paid-for closed-source software (from operating system up to webserver) on a server that you set up, in a colo that you pay for, to run your blog.
gtsop 5y ago
No, this is a falacy. As a living being you don't really stand any chance of not participating in society in some way or another. However the author has the following options: - pay for proprietary stack of technology to publish their website - pay for the open source software they are using (donate) - not do any websites and publish their opinion on other social media or even physical print. Write a papper, print flyers - do literally nothing All of these are actual viable options. Not participating in society kinda isn't an option if you wanna live
- badsectoracula 5y ago
  Is it even possible to completely avoid open source software nowadays though? Windows itself might not be completely open source but it has a bunch of open source components and/or is based on open source components (even the TCP/IP stack has its roots on BSD :-P). Even your CPU (especially Intel with its IME using Minix) and UEFI might have some open source code. Perhaps if you find some 20 year old PC with an obscure proprietary operating system that has its own network stack you could do it. Though that "proprietary purity" will break down as soon as you step out of that PC box and connect it to a router or whatever since chances are it will run open source software and your purely proprietary signal will be contaminated way before reaching some end user's browser :-P
  - gtsop 5y ago