5 ms·

That's great as a snapshot - but add in a time axis. A year down the line, 20 companies are using your code. Two years down the line, 100 companies are using y

That's great as a snapshot - but add in a time axis. A year down the line, 20 companies are using your code. Two years down the line, 100 companies are using your code. Now you have a choice: Do you continue donating your time, servers, emotions and experience to making someone else money? If you choose yes, know that typically at least one of those companies will be hounding you for bugfixes or out-of-scope demands. We have seen how much the internet can vilify people who refuse to do this kind of free work. If your turnaround for a fix on your globally used code is anything more than minutes, you will be hated. At least, until it's fixed, then you'll go back to being ignored. If you choose no, well you have two choices: Change the license and yank the rug out from under people, or pass it on to someone else - who might pass it on to someone else - who might pass it on to a scammer who breaks the whole internet. Either way, the internet will vilify you for twice as long for your choice. Many people, especially with programmer brain chemistry, end up going down the high-momentum-low-friction route of burning themselves out for the sake of conflict (and bad reputation) avoidance. Because it's very easy for you to say "sell your product", especially if that's something you're good at (or if you've never done it before and so presume it's something you're good at). So once you see that, and you know that, and you see fellow developers stuck in the same hole and you see that you are well placed to do something - anything - to help change that, wouldn't you? > there is no expectation of being paid. If one expects to be paid, one should sell their product. Like most blasé statements, this statement doesn't help anyone. Not least because that's exactly what Tea seems to be trying to help people to do. Whether they succeed or not, no idea - but I wouldn't be bashing the concept this early on.

travisathougies 5y ago
> Now you have a choice: Do you continue donating your time, servers, emotions and experience to making someone else money? No. I'm very clear with demands on my time that either companies have to provide resources to implement features (and I'll charge a consulting fee to train devs) or pay me directly to implement them (and I'll name the cost). Actually, several companies have paid me, and my project is significantly smaller than homebrew (niche Haskell library). > We have seen how much the internet can vilify people who refuse to do this kind of free work I don't really care about being vilified online. Have had my fair share. I'm old enough to not give a second thought to online trolls. > Change the license and yank the rug out from under people, or pass it on to someone else Or... don't change the license. Stop giving updates, and put up a notice that says you are not actively working on project X but for a fee you will be happy to make updates. > Like most blasé statements, this statement doesn't help anyone. Not least because that's exactly what Tea seems to be trying to help people to do. Whether they succeed or not, no idea - but I wouldn't be bashing the concept this early on. I wish them every success, and I may end up using it myself. However, I don't like the accusations of unfairness being levied against open source users (among which I would also include myself) for using freely available code for free.
- undecisive 5y ago
  > No. I'm very clear with demands on my time That's great for you, and the other commenter who said the same. I'm pleased you feel comfortable enough with that. Would I be right in thinking that you have spent a significant amount of time being a full-time contractor? Either way, I'll wager that makes you the 1%, not the typical. The typical developer works a full-time job and does a little project on the side. Their boss may or may not know about it, and if they do, they are happy so long as work on the project does not impact their full-time job responsibilities. But this presumption of "I feel comfortable with X and therefore nobody else needs help with this" is terribly damaging, and the fact that these over-confident voices shout about how weak and inexperienced and dumb everyone else is for falling into that trap, only serves to cement the impostor syndrome and erode self worth. People usually cannot be shamed into becoming more confident and assertive. People need to be supported into becoming more confident and assertive. And a project that helps people feel supported cannot be a bad thing imo. >> tech giants accrued fortunes on the backs of people they’ve never thanked, paid or even met. > I don't like the accusations of unfairness being levied against open source users (among which I would also include myself) There's the problem. Unless you happen to be a tech giant, you are not the entity this project is trying to shame.
  - kelnos 5y ago
    At this point I'm not really sure why you continue arguing this. I don't think anyone is claiming that the common case is the developer who stands up for themselves, has healthy boundaries, and doesn't let internet-hate scare them. Most developers fall into this trap, including a past version of myself. But I think it's a pretty objective fact that this isn't a good way to be. I'd be hard-pressed to find someone that would say that it's awesome to be a doormat who allows others to walk all over them. But with work (possibly with the help of someone like a therapist or professional coach), people can change their attitude in order to have a healthier relationship with their OSS projects, and can develop the assertiveness necessary to enforce their boundaries. If you (not you "you", just the general "you") don't want to put in that work, that's ok I guess, but then maybe you should just accept that you're always going to have a toxic relationship with your OSS projects and with some of your users. Just to be clear, from your statement: > But this presumption of "I feel comfortable with X and therefore nobody else needs help with this" I'm having trouble finding where anyone said this (and if that's what you're reading, maybe you should step back and think about why that is). I see people saying that they're able to set healthy boundaries, presumably as inspiration to others. "If I can do it, don't despair: this is something you can learn too, and it will improve your life." We need not accept that the status quo is the only option, especially when it's a fairly bad option. I don't know if Tea will be good or useful or will solve any problems, but I do note that it (at least in part) seems like a technological solution to a social problem, and those tend to not work out so well. Or they do work, but serve as a crutch to allow people to avoid confronting uncomfortable truths about themselves.
bityard 5y ago
> A year down the line, 20 companies are using your code. Two years down the line, 100 companies are using your code. > > Now you have a choice: Do you continue donating your time, servers, emotions and experience to making someone else money? Every single number you mentioned is completely irrelevant because your underlying premise is faulty. If you released some very good code to the world for free under an open source license, it doesn't matter whether 0 people or 1 million people use it. You are under literally zero obligation to fix or update anything, just like it says in the text of the license you picked. Any social obligation that people imagine you have (or in your case perhaps more importantly that you imagine you have), is just that: imaginary. If you can't stand the idea of some stranger on the planet not liking you because you refuse to spend your time fixing their pet bugs, that would be a good topic to bring up with your therapist. And of course, just because something you did crosses some arbitrary line of popularity doesn't mean the universe suddenly decides you are entitled to compensation for it. If that's how you hoped things would go, then you should have started a business to sell it in the first place.
- undecisive 5y ago
  > You are under literally zero obligation to fix or update anything, just like it says in the text of the license you picked. That's great for you, and the other commenter who said the same. I'm pleased you feel comfortable enough with that. > Any social obligation that people imagine you have (or in your case perhaps more importantly that you imagine you have), is just that: imaginary. If you can't stand the idea of some stranger on the planet not liking you because you refuse to spend your time fixing their pet bugs, that would be a good topic to bring up with your therapist. I mean, I'll ignore the elitism in this statement, and presume you meant this sarcastically. But the idea that you associate this kind of unassertiveness with mental dysfunction is probably not a million miles wrong. However, it is not an unusual mental dysfunction, and one that many more software developers suffer from than the general populace. Assuming that your bravado is matched in your offline life, that would put you in a very small percentage of programmers. And declaring that as a source of shame rather than an opportunity for support only serves to further entrench the stigma and impostor syndrome. Which then leads to further unassertiveness and self-worth issues. Which then leads to more people feeling they are not worth being paid for their time. Which leads to more people on the internet making them feel shame. Which means I can agree with you wholeheartedly when you say: > You are under literally zero obligation to fix or update anything ... and at the same time be pleased to see people attempting to improve the situation for those thousands of developers who, in their own heads, do not feel that zero obligation as a daily reality. I may not agree it's the right approach. I may not even agree that it will work. But I'm not going to dismiss the premise, just because it's not how I personally feel. > And of course, just because something you did crosses some arbitrary line of popularity doesn't mean the universe suddenly decides you are entitled to compensation for it. If that's how you hoped things would go, then you should have started a business to sell it in the first place. This on the other hand is just plain naivety. The idea that every small side project would even support the costs of a business is not just assertiveness, it's delusional. Would you buy a shell like fish? A json query language like jq? A context summerizer for your shell like starship? An ad blocker? A file manager? And would you pay more than a payment processor or business bank account would take in fees? Something can be used by millions and make hundreds of dollarbucks in aggregate, and yet be practically worthless individually. Which is, again, one of the stated goals of Tea. I'm pretty sure it won't be a through-the-roof success, but again, happy to see people trying new ways to tackle the problem. You know. Beyond telling people to go get therapy.
kelnos 5y ago
I think there are two solutions to this: 1) You create an anonymous online identity, and release your software under that identity, and be very careful to avoid linking it to your real-life identity. Then you don't have to care at all if you're hated, because they don't know you. If you want even more separation, you can create a separate identity for each type of thing you release. You can even take this to extremes: if you feel like an identity has been "burned" by hate, you can create a new one, start contributing to the project under the new identity, and eventually your old identity can "step down" and hand the reins of the project to the new identity. There are certainly downsides to this, but the trade off may be worth it for some people. 2) Or, you can develop a thicker skin and just not care if entitled freeloading losers "hate" you (because, seriously, why do the opinions of people like that matter?). Have a form-letter response to such demands that quotes a somewhat-outrageous hourly contracting rate, with a time estimate and a requirement that half be paid up-front. Include a reminder that otherwise the work is done in your spare time on a volunteer basis, and those paying $0 for the software get $0 worth of support. (And optionally point to the warranty disclaimer that is a part of pretty much all open source licenses.) I think if more people would do #2 it would get normalized, and then no one would be "hated" for this, because it would be the common case. But too many OSS developers tie their identity and self-worth to their code, so any criticisms or deficiencies feel like personal failures that need to be fixed. I don't maintain anything popular anymore, but I used to be a core maintainer of Xfce during the 00s. I got a lot of entitled demands from various people who hadn't contributed a line of code or a sentence of documentation. My only regret is that I wasted time and energy getting into arguments with some of these people, when the best thing for me to do would have been to cut them off immediately, or just ignore them entirely. (The overall project maintainer, Olivier Fourdan, was very good at dealing with this. He would calmly reply with his reasons for not wanting to do whatever it was that someone was demanding, and then completely disengage and not reply further.) To be clear, I absolutely agree with you that many many developers handle this sort of thing poorly and contrary to their own best interests. But it doesn't have to be that way, and each individual can choose to take a healthier approach to their open source work. We have no one to blame but ourselves if we choose to engage in self-destructive behaviors in response to the entitled leeches.

travisathougies 5y ago

> Now you have a choice: Do you continue donating your time, servers, emotions and experience to making someone else money? No. I'm very clear with demands on my time that either companies have to provide resources to implement features (and I'll charge a consulting fee to train devs) or pay me directly to implement them (and I'll name the cost). Actually, several companies have paid me, and my project is significantly smaller than homebrew (niche Haskell library). > We have seen how much the internet can vilify people who refuse to do this kind of free work I don't really care about being vilified online. Have had my fair share. I'm old enough to not give a second thought to online trolls. > Change the license and yank the rug out from under people, or pass it on to someone else Or... don't change the license. Stop giving updates, and put up a notice that says you are not actively working on project X but for a fee you will be happy to make updates. > Like most blasé statements, this statement doesn't help anyone. Not least because that's exactly what Tea seems to be trying to help people to do. Whether they succeed or not, no idea - but I wouldn't be bashing the concept this early on. I wish them every success, and I may end up using it myself. However, I don't like the accusations of unfairness being levied against open source users (among which I would also include myself) for using freely available code for free.

undecisive 5y ago
> No. I'm very clear with demands on my time That's great for you, and the other commenter who said the same. I'm pleased you feel comfortable enough with that. Would I be right in thinking that you have spent a significant amount of time being a full-time contractor? Either way, I'll wager that makes you the 1%, not the typical. The typical developer works a full-time job and does a little project on the side. Their boss may or may not know about it, and if they do, they are happy so long as work on the project does not impact their full-time job responsibilities. But this presumption of "I feel comfortable with X and therefore nobody else needs help with this" is terribly damaging, and the fact that these over-confident voices shout about how weak and inexperienced and dumb everyone else is for falling into that trap, only serves to cement the impostor syndrome and erode self worth. People usually cannot be shamed into becoming more confident and assertive. People need to be supported into becoming more confident and assertive. And a project that helps people feel supported cannot be a bad thing imo. >> tech giants accrued fortunes on the backs of people they’ve never thanked, paid or even met. > I don't like the accusations of unfairness being levied against open source users (among which I would also include myself) There's the problem. Unless you happen to be a tech giant, you are not the entity this project is trying to shame.
- kelnos 5y ago
  At this point I'm not really sure why you continue arguing this. I don't think anyone is claiming that the common case is the developer who stands up for themselves, has healthy boundaries, and doesn't let internet-hate scare them. Most developers fall into this trap, including a past version of myself. But I think it's a pretty objective fact that this isn't a good way to be. I'd be hard-pressed to find someone that would say that it's awesome to be a doormat who allows others to walk all over them. But with work (possibly with the help of someone like a therapist or professional coach), people can change their attitude in order to have a healthier relationship with their OSS projects, and can develop the assertiveness necessary to enforce their boundaries. If you (not you "you", just the general "you") don't want to put in that work, that's ok I guess, but then maybe you should just accept that you're always going to have a toxic relationship with your OSS projects and with some of your users. Just to be clear, from your statement: > But this presumption of "I feel comfortable with X and therefore nobody else needs help with this" I'm having trouble finding where anyone said this (and if that's what you're reading, maybe you should step back and think about why that is). I see people saying that they're able to set healthy boundaries, presumably as inspiration to others. "If I can do it, don't despair: this is something you can learn too, and it will improve your life." We need not accept that the status quo is the only option, especially when it's a fairly bad option. I don't know if Tea will be good or useful or will solve any problems, but I do note that it (at least in part) seems like a technological solution to a social problem, and those tend to not work out so well. Or they do work, but serve as a crutch to allow people to avoid confronting uncomfortable truths about themselves.

bityard 5y ago

> A year down the line, 20 companies are using your code. Two years down the line, 100 companies are using your code. > > Now you have a choice: Do you continue donating your time, servers, emotions and experience to making someone else money? Every single number you mentioned is completely irrelevant because your underlying premise is faulty. If you released some very good code to the world for free under an open source license, it doesn't matter whether 0 people or 1 million people use it. You are under literally zero obligation to fix or update anything, just like it says in the text of the license you picked. Any social obligation that people imagine you have (or in your case perhaps more importantly that you imagine you have), is just that: imaginary. If you can't stand the idea of some stranger on the planet not liking you because you refuse to spend your time fixing their pet bugs, that would be a good topic to bring up with your therapist. And of course, just because something you did crosses some arbitrary line of popularity doesn't mean the universe suddenly decides you are entitled to compensation for it. If that's how you hoped things would go, then you should have started a business to sell it in the first place.

undecisive 5y ago
> You are under literally zero obligation to fix or update anything, just like it says in the text of the license you picked. That's great for you, and the other commenter who said the same. I'm pleased you feel comfortable enough with that. > Any social obligation that people imagine you have (or in your case perhaps more importantly that you imagine you have), is just that: imaginary. If you can't stand the idea of some stranger on the planet not liking you because you refuse to spend your time fixing their pet bugs, that would be a good topic to bring up with your therapist. I mean, I'll ignore the elitism in this statement, and presume you meant this sarcastically. But the idea that you associate this kind of unassertiveness with mental dysfunction is probably not a million miles wrong. However, it is not an unusual mental dysfunction, and one that many more software developers suffer from than the general populace. Assuming that your bravado is matched in your offline life, that would put you in a very small percentage of programmers. And declaring that as a source of shame rather than an opportunity for support only serves to further entrench the stigma and impostor syndrome. Which then leads to further unassertiveness and self-worth issues. Which then leads to more people feeling they are not worth being paid for their time. Which leads to more people on the internet making them feel shame. Which means I can agree with you wholeheartedly when you say: > You are under literally zero obligation to fix or update anything ... and at the same time be pleased to see people attempting to improve the situation for those thousands of developers who, in their own heads, do not feel that zero obligation as a daily reality. I may not agree it's the right approach. I may not even agree that it will work. But I'm not going to dismiss the premise, just because it's not how I personally feel. > And of course, just because something you did crosses some arbitrary line of popularity doesn't mean the universe suddenly decides you are entitled to compensation for it. If that's how you hoped things would go, then you should have started a business to sell it in the first place. This on the other hand is just plain naivety. The idea that every small side project would even support the costs of a business is not just assertiveness, it's delusional. Would you buy a shell like fish? A json query language like jq? A context summerizer for your shell like starship? An ad blocker? A file manager? And would you pay more than a payment processor or business bank account would take in fees? Something can be used by millions and make hundreds of dollarbucks in aggregate, and yet be practically worthless individually. Which is, again, one of the stated goals of Tea. I'm pretty sure it won't be a through-the-roof success, but again, happy to see people trying new ways to tackle the problem. You know. Beyond telling people to go get therapy.

kelnos 5y ago

I think there are two solutions to this: 1) You create an anonymous online identity, and release your software under that identity, and be very careful to avoid linking it to your real-life identity. Then you don't have to care at all if you're hated, because they don't know you. If you want even more separation, you can create a separate identity for each type of thing you release. You can even take this to extremes: if you feel like an identity has been "burned" by hate, you can create a new one, start contributing to the project under the new identity, and eventually your old identity can "step down" and hand the reins of the project to the new identity. There are certainly downsides to this, but the trade off may be worth it for some people. 2) Or, you can develop a thicker skin and just not care if entitled freeloading losers "hate" you (because, seriously, why do the opinions of people like that matter?). Have a form-letter response to such demands that quotes a somewhat-outrageous hourly contracting rate, with a time estimate and a requirement that half be paid up-front. Include a reminder that otherwise the work is done in your spare time on a volunteer basis, and those paying $0 for the software get $0 worth of support. (And optionally point to the warranty disclaimer that is a part of pretty much all open source licenses.) I think if more people would do #2 it would get normalized, and then no one would be "hated" for this, because it would be the common case. But too many OSS developers tie their identity and self-worth to their code, so any criticisms or deficiencies feel like personal failures that need to be fixed. I don't maintain anything popular anymore, but I used to be a core maintainer of Xfce during the 00s. I got a lot of entitled demands from various people who hadn't contributed a line of code or a sentence of documentation. My only regret is that I wasted time and energy getting into arguments with some of these people, when the best thing for me to do would have been to cut them off immediately, or just ignore them entirely. (The overall project maintainer, Olivier Fourdan, was very good at dealing with this. He would calmly reply with his reasons for not wanting to do whatever it was that someone was demanding, and then completely disengage and not reply further.) To be clear, I absolutely agree with you that many many developers handle this sort of thing poorly and contrary to their own best interests. But it doesn't have to be that way, and each individual can choose to take a healthier approach to their open source work. We have no one to blame but ourselves if we choose to engage in self-destructive behaviors in response to the entitled leeches.