3 ms·
Wouldn't the point be they're an indecent, possibly bad, actor by default since they're a business at all rather than just creating or contributing to protocols
by mrmetanoia 2y ago
Wouldn't the point be they're an indecent, possibly bad, actor by default since they're a business at all rather than just creating or contributing to protocols/standards to resolve the issues their product relies on to exist? The only way they could be a good actor is if they're using the money from their sales to fund that initiative with a plan to obsolete themselves.
I suppose if you follow that thread though a lot of businesses just shouldn't exist except for fulfilling the need they fill for the sake of those in need.
- jtwoodhouse 2y agoCompanies are allowed to solve problems for a profit. People can choose to sell their time and energy or give it away. The choice is the default. In fact, I prefer that capitalist model at this point having seen countless OSS/nonprofit efforts turn into glorified abandonware. At least the business has an interest in remaining a going concern and maintaining the stack.
- wmf 2y agoBTW the best way to make standards happen is to sell a product based on the standard. Academic standards don't go anywhere.
- benreesman 2y agoI have no idea what the adoption is, but this reminds me of the really nice work the buf.build people are doing with ConnectRPC. I have a SaaS-crush on buf because they did such a good job on fixing such an annoying problem.