4 ms·
The author is taking the term too literally. Try explaining software packaging and distribution to a non-technical person. Using analogies like "software supp
by arberx 4y ago
The author is taking the term too literally.
Try explaining software packaging and distribution to a non-technical person.
Using analogies like "software supply chain" helps people better frame a problem/concept in their heads.
- mind-blight 4y agoAgreed. There are some interesting points made in the last third of the article, but the rigid interpretation in the beginning doesn't add anything to them. If the author scraped the title and just focused on how they are large companies attempting to force their will on open source maintainers to protect their supply chain, they'd have a stronger piece.
- 3np 4y agoI think the author is rather raising the issue that this analogy gives people false expectations since they take it too literally. I don't think this post would have been made (and certainly not frontpaged) if this was just semantic pedantry.
- worik 4y agoNot just "too literally" but outright incorrectly. "A supply chain is a network of individuals and companies who are involved in creating a product and delivering it to the consumer. Links on the chain begin with the producers of the raw materials and end when the van delivers the finished product to the end user. " https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/supplychain.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/supplychain.asp The exchange of money, guarantees, quality assurance... None of it is required.
- nrmitchi 4y agoFurther, the apparently requirement for "money to change hands" falls flat on it's face. The last node in the supply chain for virtually any real-world product is "human beings extract the material from the earth in some way/shape/form". No human being paid "the earth" money for this, yet it is a fundamental component of supply chains (and, recently, a fundamental component of many supply chain issues). "The earth" also doesn't offer any guarantees or quality assurance. Attempting to interpret these processes as requirements to be part of a "supply chain" excludes the core foundation of traditional supply chains.
- ectopod 4y agoIt's investopedia. The exchange of money is taken as read. You might as well say that a vendor of exotic fish not mentioning water is proof that the fish don't need it.
- worik 4y agoI am used to investopedia. The exchange of money is not "taken as read"
- vngzs 4y agoI mostly agree with the article, but the title is downright wrong. Even a relatively literal read of the words "supply chain" is reasonably appropriate, even for FOSS. Wikipedia's current definition for supply chain is: > In commerce, a supply chain refers to the network of organizations, people, activities, information, and resources involved in delivering a product or service to a consumer. There's nothing in that definition that necessitates a formal agreement, support commitment, etc.