4 ms·

Yes, Google is a service. But then again, Debian repositories are a service, as is Wikipedia, as is Usenet (although you said 'open source', I'm assuming your

Yes, Google is a service. But then again, Debian repositories are a service, as is Wikipedia, as is Usenet (although you said 'open source', I'm assuming your argument extends to donated effort in general). So there must be some other difficulty to Google. There are high stakes, business wise, in web search. But then again, that was just as true for operating systems and web browsers. So cross that one too. Google is resource intensive. Open source is good at providing manpower, but not so good at sustaining huge running costs of other type. But then again, Google started quite small, and I'd guess Wikipedia, Usenet or Debian need more resources than many small companies. So, is it only a matter of size? In any event, this doesn't apply to Aaron's new startup. Anything else?

euccastro 19y ago
Just came to mind: an area where open source doesn't even try to go, AFAIK, is services that require you to entrust them with sensitive personal data. For example, I don't think there's any volunteer run service that asks you for your credit card info, or that hosts your personal email. I don't think it's only (or mainly) a matter of accountability. In general, volunteer services are given for the benefit of a community. Services targeted to individuals (except casual social interactions like answering questions) don't attract much volunteer effort, and are generally provided by for-profit companies.
- nostrademons 19y ago
  Anything that creates obligations essentially has to be done as a company. Open-source programmers typically tend to be leery of taking on projects where they have to do something, with good reason. Also, contracts generally aren't enforceable if there is no money (or other "consideration") changing hands. Anything where you want to be sure that something gets done in the future basically needs to go through the real economy. The examples cited so far are basically special cases of this. Google needs to be able to enter into contracts for hosting, bandwidth, power, uptime, etc, so it needs to be a real corporation. When you entrust sensitive personal data, you want an ongoing obligation to keep that data secure, which you can't get with open-source. Additional examples might be corporate support contracts, support for certain platforms, and any service dealing with payment or finances. Basically, open-source is good for sharing what people have done, while corporations are good for determining what people will do.
  - euccastro 19y ago
    Very lucid, thanks.

euccastro 19y ago

Just came to mind: an area where open source doesn't even try to go, AFAIK, is services that require you to entrust them with sensitive personal data. For example, I don't think there's any volunteer run service that asks you for your credit card info, or that hosts your personal email. I don't think it's only (or mainly) a matter of accountability. In general, volunteer services are given for the benefit of a community. Services targeted to individuals (except casual social interactions like answering questions) don't attract much volunteer effort, and are generally provided by for-profit companies.

nostrademons 19y ago
Anything that creates obligations essentially has to be done as a company. Open-source programmers typically tend to be leery of taking on projects where they have to do something, with good reason. Also, contracts generally aren't enforceable if there is no money (or other "consideration") changing hands. Anything where you want to be sure that something gets done in the future basically needs to go through the real economy. The examples cited so far are basically special cases of this. Google needs to be able to enter into contracts for hosting, bandwidth, power, uptime, etc, so it needs to be a real corporation. When you entrust sensitive personal data, you want an ongoing obligation to keep that data secure, which you can't get with open-source. Additional examples might be corporate support contracts, support for certain platforms, and any service dealing with payment or finances. Basically, open-source is good for sharing what people have done, while corporations are good for determining what people will do.
- euccastro 19y ago
  Very lucid, thanks.