4 ms·
The "why" in the article doesn't rest on open source being magic: - building company without VC - 100% open source, easy to self-host, high quality import/exp
by mlinksva 5y ago
The "why" in the article doesn't rest on open source being magic:
- building company without VC
- 100% open source, easy to self-host, high quality import/export
- building software so that it is easy to maintain and operate
- substantial community of developers (100+ commits) beyond those employed by company
Open source as magic seems like at most 25% of the argument, more charitably 10%.
- bawolff 5y agoI think a good point of comparison would be phabricator. It meets much of the same criteria (although much is subjective of course). Look where phabricator is now.
- mlinksva 5y agoI don't know either very well (and guess you know phabricator very well) but it seems to me the criterion that there's a big difference between the two on is the last -- significant developer community not employed by the leading entity, though it isn't _that_ strong of a point for Zulip; it isn't say PostgreSQL. That also may be the best case for the "will" in the title, though it'd of course be better to say "Why it's relatively likely Zulip will stand the test of time" or "How we've tried to build Zulip to stand the test of time" rather than "Why Zulip will stand the test of time".