4 ms·

> I honestly can't think of another industry that relies so heavily on things they get for free [...] So many people act like Open Source is great. But [...] I

by ajross 4y ago

> I honestly can't think of another industry that relies so heavily on things they get for free [...] So many people act like Open Source is great. But [...] I likewise have trouble understanding how people getting so much great stuff for free, with which they create stunning, society-changing artifacts on a regular basis, think that getting that stuff for free was... bad? I mean, yes, you don't get a warrantee and don't sign a contract and don't have anyone to blame but yourself if it breaks. And it works amazingly well! Objectively and experimentally much better than the proprietary infrastructure that it replaced[1]. And it's not like buying your stuff solves this problem anyway. This very site is filled with complaints and reports of proprietary software failing to work the way its users intend too. [1] Anyone else remember porting software across six Unices in the 90's? I do!

that_guy_iain 4y ago
> And it's not like buying your stuff solves this problem anyway. This very site is filled with complaints and reports of proprietary software failing to work the way its users intend too. I've had proprietary software break on me. It was actually our fault. Literally, it resulted in there being a call with a developer at the vendor and they fixed our code for us. I've had proprietary software break and got money back for SLAs. You get a fix real quick when there is an SLA. I've had proprietary software have release dates pushed back because we couldn't handle the time to rewrite to the new version and we still had a support contract for that version. We could have choosen just to keep paying for support on the old version at a higher price but obivously choose to rewrite to the newer version. At the same time, I've had pull requests go unmerged even though they had tests and fixed bugs. For me, even if it's just the ability to complain I thnk paying is worth it. You complain to an open source project they're screwing with your stuff you're an entitled user. You complain to a vendor that they're screwing with your stuff, you're an rightfully angry customer that gives them a reason to spend time to fix the issue causing you problems.
- ajross 4y ago
  > I've had proprietary software break on me. It was actually our fault. Literally, it resulted in there being a call with a developer at the vendor and they fixed our code for us. I write open source software for a living. I've had users come to me with problems that turn out to be bugs in their code. I fix their code for them. This happens pretty much every week. I don't see the distinction, one anecdote is as good as another. Obviously, yes, you can write big checks that ensure people take you seriously, which is fundamentally what you're talking about here. You can write those checks to anyone though, including many, many excellent companies who would love to take your money to maintain their open source projects. It's an orthogonal problem. All I'm saying is don't confuse the two.
  - that_guy_iain 4y ago
    > I write open source software for a living. I've had users come to me with problems that turn out to be bugs in their code. I fix their code for them. This happens pretty much every week. I don't see the distinction, one anecdote is as good as another. I have a feeling the difference is you told them how they were using it wrong and/or wrote code in a comment that they could copy and paste. While the vendor's developer literally made modifications to our codebase themselves. There is a difference from providing the solution and implementing the solution.
    - ajross 4y ago
      Fair enough, but to repeat: this has nothing to do with "proprietariness" of the product you bought, it's because you Wrote Them a Big Check. In almost all cases, if you want to write big checks for your open source dependencies to ensure support, you can do that! The world is filled with companies doing consulting like this. But many people don't, because on balance it's more effective to get stuff for free and do the support yourself[1]. Just don't whine if you chose to be in category #2 but want to be in #1, just write the checks. [1] By Writing Big Checks to your expert employees, of course.
      - that_guy_iain 4y ago

by ajross 4y ago

that_guy_iain 4y ago

> And it's not like buying your stuff solves this problem anyway. This very site is filled with complaints and reports of proprietary software failing to work the way its users intend too. I've had proprietary software break on me. It was actually our fault. Literally, it resulted in there being a call with a developer at the vendor and they fixed our code for us. I've had proprietary software break and got money back for SLAs. You get a fix real quick when there is an SLA. I've had proprietary software have release dates pushed back because we couldn't handle the time to rewrite to the new version and we still had a support contract for that version. We could have choosen just to keep paying for support on the old version at a higher price but obivously choose to rewrite to the newer version. At the same time, I've had pull requests go unmerged even though they had tests and fixed bugs. For me, even if it's just the ability to complain I thnk paying is worth it. You complain to an open source project they're screwing with your stuff you're an entitled user. You complain to a vendor that they're screwing with your stuff, you're an rightfully angry customer that gives them a reason to spend time to fix the issue causing you problems.

ajross 4y ago
> I've had proprietary software break on me. It was actually our fault. Literally, it resulted in there being a call with a developer at the vendor and they fixed our code for us. I write open source software for a living. I've had users come to me with problems that turn out to be bugs in their code. I fix their code for them. This happens pretty much every week. I don't see the distinction, one anecdote is as good as another. Obviously, yes, you can write big checks that ensure people take you seriously, which is fundamentally what you're talking about here. You can write those checks to anyone though, including many, many excellent companies who would love to take your money to maintain their open source projects. It's an orthogonal problem. All I'm saying is don't confuse the two.
- that_guy_iain 4y ago
  > I write open source software for a living. I've had users come to me with problems that turn out to be bugs in their code. I fix their code for them. This happens pretty much every week. I don't see the distinction, one anecdote is as good as another. I have a feeling the difference is you told them how they were using it wrong and/or wrote code in a comment that they could copy and paste. While the vendor's developer literally made modifications to our codebase themselves. There is a difference from providing the solution and implementing the solution.
  - ajross 4y ago
    Fair enough, but to repeat: this has nothing to do with "proprietariness" of the product you bought, it's because you Wrote Them a Big Check. In almost all cases, if you want to write big checks for your open source dependencies to ensure support, you can do that! The world is filled with companies doing consulting like this. But many people don't, because on balance it's more effective to get stuff for free and do the support yourself[1]. Just don't whine if you chose to be in category #2 but want to be in #1, just write the checks. [1] By Writing Big Checks to your expert employees, of course.
    - that_guy_iain 4y ago