3 ms·

> but if you want stable software with good documentation and quick bug fixes, then some improvements need to happen. If you want stable software with good doc

> but if you want stable software with good documentation and quick bug fixes, then some improvements need to happen. If you want stable software with good documentation you can make do it yourself. If you don't want to do the work then you don't really want it that badly. Open source is about freedom. If a billion dollar company finds out they have a show stopping bug because of an Open Source library they are dependent on they can fix it. Nothing does need to change, what "status quo" are you talking about, if you don't like a piece of open source software don't use it, if you have to use it for your job then thank the stormfather that it is open source so you can go in and fix it. Honestly people seem to think that the software will become better if we just start paying for it and that is the stupidest idea I've ever heard, in fact often the crappiest software I've ever had to work with is proprietary. I always try and push my company to use open source not because I think it is always better but because if I run into a problem I can inspect the source and find out what is going on and why, and if I need to I can submit a patch. Open source != free as in beer Open source = free as in speech. The way things work now is fine, Linux works fine, Emacs works fine, if you're complaint is that some third party node library that you pulled off of Github to calculate the length of a string isn't working how you want my suggestion is submit a pull request or fork it. This idea that open source software should meet some sort of standard of quality is entitled and noxious, the only guarantee and promise you ever got with open source was that you had the source code, if you want more than that, then do it yourself.

__MatrixMan__ 4y ago
I'm with you, re: do it yourself if you want it that badly. But there's if there's an opportunity to motivate an increase in the amount of money that goes to people that are doing what's best for the OSS projects e.g. guarding against supply chain attacks via open source contributions, then I think we should take that opportunity.
- kjok 4y ago
  And how do you propose we do this? Pay developers for "secure" contributions?
  - __MatrixMan__ 4y ago
    Find developers who are scrutinizing inbound commits for free on their off time and pay them to quit their jobs so they can sleep more and scrutinize better while rested. If we can find a way to make being a professional youtuber a thing, we can find a way to make being a professionally unemployed open source developer a thing.
didgetmaster 4y ago
I could also grow all my own food, do all my car repairs myself, and build my own house; but I would rather pay people who specialize in those things to do them for me. I don't want to have to learn all the code for every single open source project I use and have to try and figure out how to build new features I want; fix a nagging bug I found without breaking something else; or rewrite the documentation. I would rather pay a few bucks (along with the other users of the software) so that collectively the developers most familiar with the code can do that and be compensated for doing so. Without that incentive, the maintainer may get around to fixing your issue sometime next year, if ever. Sure the source is open so if I REALLY, REALLY wanted to I could go dig into the unfamiliar code and try to figure out how to make it do what I want; but that just seems a little inefficient to me...but maybe that is just me.
kaba0 4y ago
> The way things work now is fine, Linux works fine Linux is being developed by salaried developers from multi-million dollar companies, almost exclusively.

__MatrixMan__ 4y ago

I'm with you, re: do it yourself if you want it that badly. But there's if there's an opportunity to motivate an increase in the amount of money that goes to people that are doing what's best for the OSS projects e.g. guarding against supply chain attacks via open source contributions, then I think we should take that opportunity.

kjok 4y ago
And how do you propose we do this? Pay developers for "secure" contributions?
- __MatrixMan__ 4y ago
  Find developers who are scrutinizing inbound commits for free on their off time and pay them to quit their jobs so they can sleep more and scrutinize better while rested. If we can find a way to make being a professional youtuber a thing, we can find a way to make being a professionally unemployed open source developer a thing.

didgetmaster 4y ago

I could also grow all my own food, do all my car repairs myself, and build my own house; but I would rather pay people who specialize in those things to do them for me. I don't want to have to learn all the code for every single open source project I use and have to try and figure out how to build new features I want; fix a nagging bug I found without breaking something else; or rewrite the documentation. I would rather pay a few bucks (along with the other users of the software) so that collectively the developers most familiar with the code can do that and be compensated for doing so. Without that incentive, the maintainer may get around to fixing your issue sometime next year, if ever. Sure the source is open so if I REALLY, REALLY wanted to I could go dig into the unfamiliar code and try to figure out how to make it do what I want; but that just seems a little inefficient to me...but maybe that is just me.

kaba0 4y ago

> The way things work now is fine, Linux works fine Linux is being developed by salaried developers from multi-million dollar companies, almost exclusively.