5 ms·

Obviously, ESR is talking about hacker users, and "Company X" is talking about hacker employees.

• jdthomas 15y ago
  This is true, but you would expect that "hacker employees" would make their products compatible with "hacker users." My thoughts when reading Zuckerberg's letter (and I admit I only scanned it) were: 1. "Wow, this surprises me, but I actually agree with what he is saying." followed immediately by 2. "Waaaaaaait just one minute. Facebook -- externally at least -- embodies none of this!" They have closed down what could be open. They are helping to ruin the internet by making walled gardens acceptable and the norm.
• nknight 15y ago
  If Facebook embodied "the hacker way" internally, they wouldn't behave in the manner they do toward their users. They wouldn't elevate their "hacker employees" to a privileged position over a "hacker user" when it comes to that user's data and mechanism of experience. A company wouldn't get to call itself an "open source company" just because all of their employees have access to their source code.
  • eropple 15y ago
    > A company wouldn't get to call itself an "open source company" just because all of their employees have access to their source code. HipHop. Thrift. Cassandra. Hive. Tornado. And that's just off the top of my head. I've seen commits from @facebook.com emails to Hadoop, HBase, PHP, and Varnish. There are a lot of things you can call Facebook. One is definitely an "open source company."
    • jrockway 15y ago
      RedHat is an open source company. Facebook is a social networking company.
    • nknight 15y ago
      That was an analogy, it should be blindingly obvious I was in no way addressing whether Facebook is an open source company.