4 ms·

The problem is your CEO was right. Exploiting open source is the right move. Instead of hiring engineers to write an operating system you guys likely exploited

The problem is your CEO was right. Exploiting open source is the right move. Instead of hiring engineers to write an operating system you guys likely exploited Linux and a bunch of other free tools. 100 percent: open source has contributed to less demand. It's the only logical conclusion. The thing is that supply is so low that even with less demand it still outstrips supply. Here's the the thing we should be cautious about. Times change. Technology changes, the culture changes and interest rates also change. Demand may not always outstrip supply.

voxl 4y ago
No, the CEO was wrong. You're conflating a serendipitous use of open source software with a targeted exploitation of it. People decided to open source Linux, GCC, and other tools. So developers at companies use them, because they are available. This is not exploitation, though, it is the intention. Developers made these tools specifically for other developers to use them, even at their jobs. The CEO, however, wants to convince developers to work on software that would drive value for the company. In essence, the CEO wants to trick open source developers. This is clearly doomed to fail.
- roflyear 4y ago
  I know commercial products where the code is open source (and largely useless to anything except the product) and people contribute. Decent Espresso is one. It is insane anyone contributes but they do. Rich owner gets tons of free labor.
- HervalFreire 4y ago
  You are getting your emotions mixed up with facts. When you use open source you are exploiting a resource as there is no fair trade. It's not a crime nor is it immoral but because no fair trade occured it is technically an exploitation. No CEO tricked open source developers. Open source developers create open source as a charity to society that's all. They aren't tricked. They willingly choose to allow others to exploit their goodwill as a resource. Many people choose not to exploit them and donate money for their efforts, but most don't. Put it this way. People can be aware they are being exploited and people can be unaware that they are exploiting others. Knowledge of the action is independent of the action of exploitation.
  - voxl 4y ago
    If I gift you resources, the trade is fair. This is you putting your own emotions into it, and projecting. You don't get to tell me what I do with my resources, and my labor and time has no intrinsic value. Even with your description of things, you still have the wrong way of things. The CEO in the description obviously wants to make open source developers build _something new_. That is, something they have not decided to gift to the community already. We can argue semantics of the word exploit, of which I think you're being ridiculous, but even with your definition the situations are different.
    - HervalFreire 4y ago
      >If I gift you resources, the trade is fair. A gift isn't a fair trade. That's why a gift is not called a fair trade. There's such phrase: "fair gift". > You don't get to tell me what I do with my resources, and my labor and time has no intrinsic value. I never did tell you what to do with your time and resources. Why would you assume I did something that never occurred? I think your emotions are saying this. >The CEO in the description obviously wants to make open source developers build _something new_. That is, something they have not decided to gift to the community already. No exploitation doesn't just involve that. Even taking something already built without a fair trade is still exploitation. >We can argue semantics of the word exploit, of which I think you're being ridiculous, but even with your definition the situations are different. Not only CAN we argue this, we are arguing this. This is the central point. And it's not about MY definition either. It's about the colloquial definition of the word exploit. If you google it, you will see that I am right. There is no different "situation" here. You're simply offended by the word "exploit" because you have preconceived connotations attached to it. I don't have any skin in the game, I don't have to adjust vocabulary or my interpretation of the English language to justify my place in the world. That CEO is strategically making the best decision by "exploiting" open source. Anyone following that plan is also making the most cost efficient strategic move. He may be acting like an ass about it, but logically his strategy is correct. That's just reality.
      - nextaccountic 4y ago

voxl 4y ago

No, the CEO was wrong. You're conflating a serendipitous use of open source software with a targeted exploitation of it. People decided to open source Linux, GCC, and other tools. So developers at companies use them, because they are available. This is not exploitation, though, it is the intention. Developers made these tools specifically for other developers to use them, even at their jobs. The CEO, however, wants to convince developers to work on software that would drive value for the company. In essence, the CEO wants to trick open source developers. This is clearly doomed to fail.

roflyear 4y ago
I know commercial products where the code is open source (and largely useless to anything except the product) and people contribute. Decent Espresso is one. It is insane anyone contributes but they do. Rich owner gets tons of free labor.
HervalFreire 4y ago
You are getting your emotions mixed up with facts. When you use open source you are exploiting a resource as there is no fair trade. It's not a crime nor is it immoral but because no fair trade occured it is technically an exploitation. No CEO tricked open source developers. Open source developers create open source as a charity to society that's all. They aren't tricked. They willingly choose to allow others to exploit their goodwill as a resource. Many people choose not to exploit them and donate money for their efforts, but most don't. Put it this way. People can be aware they are being exploited and people can be unaware that they are exploiting others. Knowledge of the action is independent of the action of exploitation.
- voxl 4y ago
  If I gift you resources, the trade is fair. This is you putting your own emotions into it, and projecting. You don't get to tell me what I do with my resources, and my labor and time has no intrinsic value. Even with your description of things, you still have the wrong way of things. The CEO in the description obviously wants to make open source developers build _something new_. That is, something they have not decided to gift to the community already. We can argue semantics of the word exploit, of which I think you're being ridiculous, but even with your definition the situations are different.
  - HervalFreire 4y ago
    >If I gift you resources, the trade is fair. A gift isn't a fair trade. That's why a gift is not called a fair trade. There's such phrase: "fair gift". > You don't get to tell me what I do with my resources, and my labor and time has no intrinsic value. I never did tell you what to do with your time and resources. Why would you assume I did something that never occurred? I think your emotions are saying this. >The CEO in the description obviously wants to make open source developers build _something new_. That is, something they have not decided to gift to the community already. No exploitation doesn't just involve that. Even taking something already built without a fair trade is still exploitation. >We can argue semantics of the word exploit, of which I think you're being ridiculous, but even with your definition the situations are different. Not only CAN we argue this, we are arguing this. This is the central point. And it's not about MY definition either. It's about the colloquial definition of the word exploit. If you google it, you will see that I am right. There is no different "situation" here. You're simply offended by the word "exploit" because you have preconceived connotations attached to it. I don't have any skin in the game, I don't have to adjust vocabulary or my interpretation of the English language to justify my place in the world. That CEO is strategically making the best decision by "exploiting" open source. Anyone following that plan is also making the most cost efficient strategic move. He may be acting like an ass about it, but logically his strategy is correct. That's just reality.
    - nextaccountic 4y ago