3 ms·
In this case, my interest is in finding the absolute least charitable, least nebulous justification for open source I possible can. Not because I agree with th
by thatthatis 13y ago
In this case, my interest is in finding the absolute least charitable, least nebulous justification for open source I possible can. Not because I agree with the non charitable interpretation, but because if I can win the argument that open source is better without imploring charity, I can win the argument with CFOs and Bankers and Lawyers.
As soon as you start mentioning intangibles like charity and reputation and recruiting, a certain group of people will stop listening to you.
I think you can justify open source based on security, quality, and cost. If you open source correctly, you get more secure, better quality, at lower cost.
My personal philosophy is one thing. The stances I employ or postulate to sway others are a sub-set.
- eastridge 13y agoThorax author here again. A few non charitable things have come out of the development of Thorax. On the developer happiness / retention front, I still work on projects for Walmart because I got to help open source Thorax. I'm now extremely happy there due to other closed source projects, but when I've been less happy it's kept me there. On the code quality front, we haven't actually gotten a ton of contributions from the OSS community, but it's a niche framework and not the next Rails, Angular, etc. But what I believed happened when we open sourced it is that we held ourselves to a higher standard of documentations, versioning, testing, etc. Now that we use it across multiple departments with teams that don't really interact with each other directly, having something more stable becomes extremely important. If there is no external accountability I think it's much easier to decide to break an API.
- thatthatis 13y agoI really appreciate you taking the time to add that to the discussion. Thank you!