4 ms·

The recent elementary OS melt down shows the problem with this path. Creating a business to act as a middle man creates a situation where no one can reach the p

by yakak 5y ago

The recent elementary OS melt down shows the problem with this path. Creating a business to act as a middle man creates a situation where no one can reach the people who want to do maintenance because business interests will develop and want to hold the code hostage. It is better to form non-profits that hire maintainers.

FiloSottile 5y ago
I'm arguing against middleman businesses, not for. I don't see the non-profit model scaling to the whole industry, and the examples we have today of non-profit foundations mostly don't pay maintainers. For example, Log4j is under the Apache Foundation but none of the developers on its committee were being paid.
- yakak 5y ago
  Elementary OS as a business was the two initial maintainers and that fell apart pretty spectacularly, plus a lot of the work was really not theirs they were just a distribution. Apache's model is the traditional one which isn't aggressive enough. Linux foundation is more aggressive about offering lessons as products etc. I'm not as happy with LF' model as the hippie model but it is better than devolving into no new work causing no one to donate because ex-maintainers are supposed to have vesting future stock, etc.
apatters 5y ago
Elementary's problem is it has two inexperienced founders who aren't negotiating with each other very well, I'd hardly call it a meltdown, nor particularly relevant to the examples in this article. The entrepreneur in me will never understand this problem: "programmer creates world famous software used by Microsoft and NASA and doesn't make any money and is burning out from all the work." Here are your solutions: 1) If the users want support, charge them for it. Split the proceeds with someone who will actually do the support. If it's still too much work, raise the price. 2) If the users want features, charge them money to put those features on your roadmap. If they're asking for features you don't want to add, just raise the price or say no until they go away. Here is what will happen when you ask for money: people you don't want to deal with will disappear. Also you'll have more money, and you will work less. Do you need to think about business a bit somewhere in there, sure, but probably a lot less than most people think. The "business side" for the Grunt guy could probably be "register an LLC online then get an Upwork account and let them handle the other shit like your payments and tax forms for 5%." Yes, fucking Upwork.
- yakak 5y ago
  There's nothing wrong with a consulting model yet I wouldn't use code under their direct/complete control. Plenty of Apache Projects have members that are in consultant companies, their willingness to make changes for cash is balanced by other orgs that only want to contribute directly, ensure existing functionality, etc.
jrm4 5y ago
Said it elsewhere, Elementary's problem is that "Desktop OS" is a deceptively stupid business model. "The Desktop" was essentially solved about 20 years ago, but Microsoft and Apple are powerful and interested enough to really screw around with them in a way to make it seem like this is not the case.

by yakak 5y ago

FiloSottile 5y ago

I'm arguing against middleman businesses, not for. I don't see the non-profit model scaling to the whole industry, and the examples we have today of non-profit foundations mostly don't pay maintainers. For example, Log4j is under the Apache Foundation but none of the developers on its committee were being paid.

yakak 5y ago
Elementary OS as a business was the two initial maintainers and that fell apart pretty spectacularly, plus a lot of the work was really not theirs they were just a distribution. Apache's model is the traditional one which isn't aggressive enough. Linux foundation is more aggressive about offering lessons as products etc. I'm not as happy with LF' model as the hippie model but it is better than devolving into no new work causing no one to donate because ex-maintainers are supposed to have vesting future stock, etc.

apatters 5y ago

Elementary's problem is it has two inexperienced founders who aren't negotiating with each other very well, I'd hardly call it a meltdown, nor particularly relevant to the examples in this article. The entrepreneur in me will never understand this problem: "programmer creates world famous software used by Microsoft and NASA and doesn't make any money and is burning out from all the work." Here are your solutions: 1) If the users want support, charge them for it. Split the proceeds with someone who will actually do the support. If it's still too much work, raise the price. 2) If the users want features, charge them money to put those features on your roadmap. If they're asking for features you don't want to add, just raise the price or say no until they go away. Here is what will happen when you ask for money: people you don't want to deal with will disappear. Also you'll have more money, and you will work less. Do you need to think about business a bit somewhere in there, sure, but probably a lot less than most people think. The "business side" for the Grunt guy could probably be "register an LLC online then get an Upwork account and let them handle the other shit like your payments and tax forms for 5%." Yes, fucking Upwork.

yakak 5y ago
There's nothing wrong with a consulting model yet I wouldn't use code under their direct/complete control. Plenty of Apache Projects have members that are in consultant companies, their willingness to make changes for cash is balanced by other orgs that only want to contribute directly, ensure existing functionality, etc.

jrm4 5y ago

Said it elsewhere, Elementary's problem is that "Desktop OS" is a deceptively stupid business model. "The Desktop" was essentially solved about 20 years ago, but Microsoft and Apple are powerful and interested enough to really screw around with them in a way to make it seem like this is not the case.