5 ms·

The ending paragraphs: > Perhaps this is not only the future of open-source software. No closed-source developer can match the pool of talent the Linux communi

by zokier 3y ago

The ending paragraphs: > Perhaps this is not only the future of open-source software. No closed-source developer can match the pool of talent the Linux community can bring to bear on a problem. Very few could afford even to hire the more than 200 (1999: 600, 2000: 800) people who have contributed to fetchmail! > Perhaps in the end the open-source culture will triumph not because cooperation is morally right or software ``hoarding'' is morally wrong (assuming you believe the latter, which neither Linus nor I do), but simply because the closed-source world cannot win an evolutionary arms race with open-source communities that can put orders of magnitude more skilled time into a problem. Problematically I don't really see anywhere discussion where that large amount of skilled time originates; the economics of the situation. Even developers need to put food on the table.

tptacek 3y ago
Notice how the argument breaks down. It is the case that the open source model has made Linux difficult to compete with (though that is in significant ways the result of commercial development; still, those corporate contributors were coerced into open source development by Linux's success, and would have done things differently in a VxWorks alternate history). But that same open source model produced Fetchmail. Most startups could produce something comparable to Fetchmail, even if forced to use 1999 tools. The open source model didn't turn Fetchmail into an insurmountably dominant tool in its space; Fetchmail had fallen into irrelevance even before Google Mail made all of these kinds of tools irrelevant.
chubot 3y ago
Yeah the fallacy is that most open source comes from independent programmers What has undoubtedly happened since Raymond’s time is that Intel, Google, etc became the biggest Linux contributors Mozilla has been almost entirely funded by search revenue for decades Big pieces of open source like the JVM and MySQL seem to require corporate stewards, for better or worse Microsoft did a 180 on open source, to some acclaim, which I’m still skeptical of So the framing is it a bit wrong now, and modern writing probably needs new terms to make these distinctions clear There is independent open source but it seems clear that most open source is funded by commercial entities
- tptacek 3y ago
  Further, the largest open source projects --- Linux included --- are increasingly gatekept, and have their own priesthoods. And that's arguably been for the good!
  - Silhouette 3y ago
    But it's a different kind of gatekeeping to the increasingly exploitative and user-hostile world of commercial closed-source software. Perhaps "leaders" in a very literal sense would be a more apt term than "gatekeepers". That's one way that the FOSS model will always have a built-in advantage: if anyone steering the ship tries to throw the users overboard then someone else can always fork the project as a last resort. This has actually happened in a few significant cases and is always there as a warning sign to anyone thinking of steering a new course for the wrong reasons.
    - tptacek 3y ago
      I believe the same thing everyone else does about the superiority of open-source software development. I just don't think this article is a good explanation of where that superiority comes from. In large part, the importance of Linux's code being open is that it makes it safer for large corporations (Intel, Google) to invest time in it; that has nothing to do with a bazaar ethic!
      - jasonwatkinspdx 3y ago
        I've come around to thinking of corporate open source as a way companies can partition what they want to compete vs collaborate on. This is sort of a variation on the commoditize your complement strategy. Most of business is not zero sum, so I don't think it's particularly surprising competitors do agree on sharing the cost of maintaining infrastructure that isn't their moat or basis of market share.
- NickNaraghi 3y ago
  That doesn’t seem fundamentally bad to me. What do you think the risks are of this approach?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
jwilk 3y ago
> 200 (1999: 600, 2000: 800) people who have contributed to fetchmail That doesn't sound believable. How did he come up with these numbers?
- jimbokun 3y ago
  Looking through the commits?
  - jwilk 3y ago
    You mean like this? $ git clone -q https://gitlab.com/fetchmail/fetchmail.git $ git -C fetchmail/ shortlog -s | wc -l 46 OK, they started using git only in ~2010, so earlier commits are less likely to be attributed correctly, but still, that's not even the same order of magnitude.
coldtea 3y ago
>Very few could afford even to hire the more than 200 (1999: 600, 2000: 800) people who have contributed to fetchmail! I'm willing to bet those "200" people are 1-3 core contributors and 197-199 people who once fixed some bug and have like 2 commits in the whole codebase, or changed a comment's message. Also "Fetchmail" as some kind of high bar? Commercial companies have produced software with 10 to 100x the scope and user base (and quality). Including back then.

by zokier 3y ago

tptacek 3y ago

Notice how the argument breaks down. It is the case that the open source model has made Linux difficult to compete with (though that is in significant ways the result of commercial development; still, those corporate contributors were coerced into open source development by Linux's success, and would have done things differently in a VxWorks alternate history). But that same open source model produced Fetchmail. Most startups could produce something comparable to Fetchmail, even if forced to use 1999 tools. The open source model didn't turn Fetchmail into an insurmountably dominant tool in its space; Fetchmail had fallen into irrelevance even before Google Mail made all of these kinds of tools irrelevant.

chubot 3y ago

Yeah the fallacy is that most open source comes from independent programmers What has undoubtedly happened since Raymond’s time is that Intel, Google, etc became the biggest Linux contributors Mozilla has been almost entirely funded by search revenue for decades Big pieces of open source like the JVM and MySQL seem to require corporate stewards, for better or worse Microsoft did a 180 on open source, to some acclaim, which I’m still skeptical of So the framing is it a bit wrong now, and modern writing probably needs new terms to make these distinctions clear There is independent open source but it seems clear that most open source is funded by commercial entities

tptacek 3y ago
Further, the largest open source projects --- Linux included --- are increasingly gatekept, and have their own priesthoods. And that's arguably been for the good!
- Silhouette 3y ago
  But it's a different kind of gatekeeping to the increasingly exploitative and user-hostile world of commercial closed-source software. Perhaps "leaders" in a very literal sense would be a more apt term than "gatekeepers". That's one way that the FOSS model will always have a built-in advantage: if anyone steering the ship tries to throw the users overboard then someone else can always fork the project as a last resort. This has actually happened in a few significant cases and is always there as a warning sign to anyone thinking of steering a new course for the wrong reasons.
  - tptacek 3y ago
    I believe the same thing everyone else does about the superiority of open-source software development. I just don't think this article is a good explanation of where that superiority comes from. In large part, the importance of Linux's code being open is that it makes it safer for large corporations (Intel, Google) to invest time in it; that has nothing to do with a bazaar ethic!
    - jasonwatkinspdx 3y ago
      I've come around to thinking of corporate open source as a way companies can partition what they want to compete vs collaborate on. This is sort of a variation on the commoditize your complement strategy. Most of business is not zero sum, so I don't think it's particularly surprising competitors do agree on sharing the cost of maintaining infrastructure that isn't their moat or basis of market share.
NickNaraghi 3y ago
That doesn’t seem fundamentally bad to me. What do you think the risks are of this approach?

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

jwilk 3y ago

> 200 (1999: 600, 2000: 800) people who have contributed to fetchmail That doesn't sound believable. How did he come up with these numbers?

jimbokun 3y ago
Looking through the commits?
- jwilk 3y ago
  You mean like this? $ git clone -q https://gitlab.com/fetchmail/fetchmail.git $ git -C fetchmail/ shortlog -s | wc -l 46 OK, they started using git only in ~2010, so earlier commits are less likely to be attributed correctly, but still, that's not even the same order of magnitude.

coldtea 3y ago

>Very few could afford even to hire the more than 200 (1999: 600, 2000: 800) people who have contributed to fetchmail! I'm willing to bet those "200" people are 1-3 core contributors and 197-199 people who once fixed some bug and have like 2 commits in the whole codebase, or changed a comment's message. Also "Fetchmail" as some kind of high bar? Commercial companies have produced software with 10 to 100x the scope and user base (and quality). Including back then.