4 ms·

>It's not like when a company the size of Spotify uses core-js they just add it to their project without thinking. No, they know how important the project is.

>It's not like when a company the size of Spotify uses core-js they just add it to their project without thinking. No, they know how important the project is. The devs at Spotify know how important that project is. But the people who control the money, middle and upper management, might now even know what Javascript is. Why would they spend money for something that's free? They're under pressure to cut costs anyway. Throwing dollars at MS or Oracle, on the other hand, is nice for managers because you get service, accountability, responsibility, guarantees, and lawyers to talk to for that money. Money is paranoid. Open source can't give you that, it's always only one poor coder.

kypro 4y ago
> Why would they spend money for something that's free? They're under pressure to cut costs anyway. But isn't this like saying, "what's an AWS? Why do we need that thing?" Is there really no one technical saying, "look we need to offer support to core-js because core-js is the software that ensures our website works for everyone using it". And you're a large company who project depends on core-js (like Spotify) it just seems sensible to offer a little support to the project to ensure it continues to be well maintained, and also so if you need anything the maintainers will prioritise you. Even if your only concern is money, then it probably pays to ensure your software works and isn't dependent on some guy in Russia continuing to make his life a living hell just so your product is functional.
- msm_ 4y ago
  > look we need to offer support to core-js because core-js is the software that ensures our website works for everyone using it But that's demonstrably not true. In fact, nobody supports core-js and all the big websites keep on working.
  - a_bonobo 4y ago
    It's a bit like 'whoever moves first loses', isn't it? So many big corpos who could pay, but if one would pay, it might be enough. So why should it be your corpo?
- WorldMaker 4y ago
  AWS provides an invoice structure that accountants understand how to navigate. Open Source mostly doesn't. I know this is why some of the "contribution bundling" approaches seem to have good merit for big Enterprise that treat Open Source a bit like a "stock portfolio" and bundle a number of open source sponsorships into a single invoice that you can present to upper management as "IT says we need to pay this bill each month because it somehow helps keep all the software lights on" without needing to get into the specifics of which software does what or how much you rely on it (or the complexity of your dependency trees). I've heard it's a priority for parts of GitHub to make such "automated open source sponsorship bundles" easier to sell to upper management and smarter in how they manage their funds for the good of the open source community and wish them luck in those endeavors.

kypro 4y ago

> Why would they spend money for something that's free? They're under pressure to cut costs anyway. But isn't this like saying, "what's an AWS? Why do we need that thing?" Is there really no one technical saying, "look we need to offer support to core-js because core-js is the software that ensures our website works for everyone using it". And you're a large company who project depends on core-js (like Spotify) it just seems sensible to offer a little support to the project to ensure it continues to be well maintained, and also so if you need anything the maintainers will prioritise you. Even if your only concern is money, then it probably pays to ensure your software works and isn't dependent on some guy in Russia continuing to make his life a living hell just so your product is functional.

msm_ 4y ago
> look we need to offer support to core-js because core-js is the software that ensures our website works for everyone using it But that's demonstrably not true. In fact, nobody supports core-js and all the big websites keep on working.
- a_bonobo 4y ago
  It's a bit like 'whoever moves first loses', isn't it? So many big corpos who could pay, but if one would pay, it might be enough. So why should it be your corpo?
WorldMaker 4y ago
AWS provides an invoice structure that accountants understand how to navigate. Open Source mostly doesn't. I know this is why some of the "contribution bundling" approaches seem to have good merit for big Enterprise that treat Open Source a bit like a "stock portfolio" and bundle a number of open source sponsorships into a single invoice that you can present to upper management as "IT says we need to pay this bill each month because it somehow helps keep all the software lights on" without needing to get into the specifics of which software does what or how much you rely on it (or the complexity of your dependency trees). I've heard it's a priority for parts of GitHub to make such "automated open source sponsorship bundles" easier to sell to upper management and smarter in how they manage their funds for the good of the open source community and wish them luck in those endeavors.