4 ms·

> No, the lifeblood of volunteer-run open source projects are their users. If there aren't users, there is absolutely no point to an Open Source software other

> No, the lifeblood of volunteer-run open source projects are their users. If there aren't users, there is absolutely no point to an Open Source software other than being a hobby for those who get involved in it. This feels a bit screwy. Maybe it's arguable what the "lifeblood" of a volunteer-run open source project is, but surely it's not simply the users -- without sufficiently motivated volunteers there would be no project for the users to use. And how is working as an unpaid volunteer, alongside your day job, anything but a hobby anyway? > Instead it would just keep losing ground or stagnating compared to closed-source private services and ecosystems that prioritize their users. Let's assume you've identified a genuine problem with many open source projects: their unpaid volunteers aren't offering good enough support to their users. What happens to the project when their motivation is completely sapped because they haven't been able to work on interesting problems, due to having to pacify needy users who aren't giving anything back?

unity1001 4y ago
> This feels a bit screwy. Maybe it's arguable what the "lifeblood" of a volunteer-run open source project is, but surely it's not simply the users -- without sufficiently motivated volunteers there would be no project for the users to use. Without users, there would be no point to any software project. Less, Open Source... > And how is working as an unpaid volunteer, alongside your day job, anything but a hobby anyway? That's precisely why Open Source projects need to find a way to get funding. There is no way the general public would build their lives and future on Open Source that relies on hobbyists. Which is a reason why Open Source is not where it should have been today. > What happens to the project when their motivation is completely sapped because they haven't been able to work on interesting problems, due to having to pacify needy users who aren't giving anything back? Nothing. The project dies. Before that, the users will have already left, probably for private, closed ecosystems. Because it was a folly to expect people to build whatever they were going to do, less their businesses or organizations, on volunteers who may go away at any point in time. Sounds brisk and brutal, I know. But that's the reality of public usage of software - if people can't rely on it, they won't use it.

unity1001 4y ago

> This feels a bit screwy. Maybe it's arguable what the "lifeblood" of a volunteer-run open source project is, but surely it's not simply the users -- without sufficiently motivated volunteers there would be no project for the users to use. Without users, there would be no point to any software project. Less, Open Source... > And how is working as an unpaid volunteer, alongside your day job, anything but a hobby anyway? That's precisely why Open Source projects need to find a way to get funding. There is no way the general public would build their lives and future on Open Source that relies on hobbyists. Which is a reason why Open Source is not where it should have been today. > What happens to the project when their motivation is completely sapped because they haven't been able to work on interesting problems, due to having to pacify needy users who aren't giving anything back? Nothing. The project dies. Before that, the users will have already left, probably for private, closed ecosystems. Because it was a folly to expect people to build whatever they were going to do, less their businesses or organizations, on volunteers who may go away at any point in time. Sounds brisk and brutal, I know. But that's the reality of public usage of software - if people can't rely on it, they won't use it.