5 ms·

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 beca

by 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?
rektide 3y ago
Open source has gotten infinitely more industrial-commercial, but it has only further proven again and again and again the Bazaar model. Cathedrals develop fast & then quickly move to only ossify & stagnante. Bazaars beget diversity & experimentation & exploration, which is expanded upon & grown & reused, and can keep "feeling" at the edge. Heck yes software organizations realized their stale dry inwarsa focused industrial processes were being outclassed, were making them uncompetitive versus software models where the world could participate suggest & expand the ideas. That the corpoate world has assimilated some of the genetics to remain competitive at all seems unremarkable to me, versus the story of how vastly the Bazaar model has come to be necessary to be an at all longstanding player.
emodendroket 3y ago
Also in the end I don't think every commercial product has an equally good free alternative.
LeFantome 3y ago
I am wondering if you can share a few words your skepticism around Microsoft and Open Source. You sound pragmatic and I might learn a lot from your views. Corporations are not people and I still see some people within MS do some dumb stuff. That said, the company overall seems to have embraced Open Source quite fundamentally and genuinely. First off, most of .NET is firmly and truly Open Source at this point. Azure is deeply in bed with Linux. Microsoft Edge shows that MS has learned that they can add value without having to take on the entire codebase.
- chubot 3y ago
  Well it's mainly a personal choice, but for example I pointed out dark patterns with VSCode here with regard to telemetry i.e. according to VS Codium, they are not able to fully disable telemetry https://lobste.rs/s/mt2p8g/google_groups_has_been_left_die#c_igltah https://lobste.rs/s/mt2p8g/google_groups_has_been_left_die#c... And the fact that basically all software is filled with dark patterns these days, so you might be able to say Microsoft is far from the worst offender But personally I would choose to invest my time elsewhere --- I would probably rather use commercial software with telemetry enabled as long as it was disclosed, rather than "open source" with intentional confusion around the issue

by chubot 3y ago

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?

rektide 3y ago

Open source has gotten infinitely more industrial-commercial, but it has only further proven again and again and again the Bazaar model. Cathedrals develop fast & then quickly move to only ossify & stagnante. Bazaars beget diversity & experimentation & exploration, which is expanded upon & grown & reused, and can keep "feeling" at the edge. Heck yes software organizations realized their stale dry inwarsa focused industrial processes were being outclassed, were making them uncompetitive versus software models where the world could participate suggest & expand the ideas. That the corpoate world has assimilated some of the genetics to remain competitive at all seems unremarkable to me, versus the story of how vastly the Bazaar model has come to be necessary to be an at all longstanding player.

emodendroket 3y ago

Also in the end I don't think every commercial product has an equally good free alternative.

LeFantome 3y ago

I am wondering if you can share a few words your skepticism around Microsoft and Open Source. You sound pragmatic and I might learn a lot from your views. Corporations are not people and I still see some people within MS do some dumb stuff. That said, the company overall seems to have embraced Open Source quite fundamentally and genuinely. First off, most of .NET is firmly and truly Open Source at this point. Azure is deeply in bed with Linux. Microsoft Edge shows that MS has learned that they can add value without having to take on the entire codebase.

chubot 3y ago
Well it's mainly a personal choice, but for example I pointed out dark patterns with VSCode here with regard to telemetry i.e. according to VS Codium, they are not able to fully disable telemetry https://lobste.rs/s/mt2p8g/google_groups_has_been_left_die#c_igltah https://lobste.rs/s/mt2p8g/google_groups_has_been_left_die#c... And the fact that basically all software is filled with dark patterns these days, so you might be able to say Microsoft is far from the worst offender But personally I would choose to invest my time elsewhere --- I would probably rather use commercial software with telemetry enabled as long as it was disclosed, rather than "open source" with intentional confusion around the issue