3 ms·

Is collaboration valued in modern startups? I hadn't noticed.

by jiggy2011 12y ago

notacoward 12y ago
Ever heard of open source? Lots of startups are using and contributing to it, using their participation to attract both users and developers. Yeah, I'd say collaboration is valued quite a bit.
- jiggy2011 12y ago
  It wouldn't surprise me if Oracle were responsible for more useful open source than every "modern startup" combined.
  - notacoward 12y ago
    Why don't you make at least a token attempt to research and prove such a strong claim? Most of their open source was acquired, not generated internally, and is demonstrably less active than it was before it became Oracle. Examples include everything from Sun or MySQL. Oracle has probably done more harm to open source than any other company including Microsoft.
    - jiggy2011 12y ago
      Oracle is a better steward of these projects than a bankrupt Sun would have been. Besides , Oracle has been an active contributor to Linux for years.
      - notacoward 12y ago
        Ask anyone who worked on Sun or MySQL whether they think Oracle has been a good steward, even compared to a volunteer-run foundation after the initial sponsor went bankrupt. For example, let's see what Sun's Bryan Cantrill had to say. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zRN7XLCRhc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zRN7XLCRhc No, Oracle isn't a steward. At best they're just using those projects at cash cows. At worst they intended to destroy their erstwhile competitors instead of trying to outdo them. What they are most definitely not doing is devoting the resources necessary to improve or even maintain the health of those projects or their communities. As for contributions to Linux, here are some figures. http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/09/google-and-samsung-soar-into-list-of-top-10-linux-contributors/ http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/09/google... Oracle doesn't even crack the top ten (none/unknown/consultant don't count). For a company that makes so much revenue selling open-source-based products, such as repackaging Red Hat's work and selling against them, 1.3% is a pretty paltry figure. What's really sad is that they contribute even less to anything else, from the Apache or OpenStack foundations down to the zillions of smaller independent projects. Just about the only comparable company with less open-source visibility is Amazon. Lastly, don't think I or others can't see how your claims keep getting changed or reduced as you're proven wrong again and again. First it was about startups not valuing collaboration, then about Oracle producing more useful open source, then about being a good steward of the open source they've acquired . . . and even that isn't true. What's next? Saying we should still worship Larry because (as far as we know) he hasn't actually killed any babies for three whole months? Stop fawning and learn about the topic.
        jiggy2011 12y ago
        1.3% is likely more than most meaningful contributions of most of the latest web 2.0 of startups. Most startups do not contribute to open source at all, especially not any parts of their core product. The rest of this comment is weird personal attacks.
      - orbifold 12y ago
        They kind of have to contribute to Linux in order for their database software to be fast.
        jiggy2011 12y ago
        Sure, but we could probably say the same about say Valve's contributions.
      - aswanson 12y ago
        The volunteer community could do a much better job.
davesque 12y ago
At least the culture values it. However, at the end of the day, it depends on who you're working with.

Is collaboration valued in modern startups? I hadn't noticed.

Ever heard of open source? Lots of startups are using and contributing to it, using their participation to attract both users and developers. Yeah, I'd say collaboration is valued quite a bit.

jiggy2011 12y ago
It wouldn't surprise me if Oracle were responsible for more useful open source than every "modern startup" combined.
- notacoward 12y ago
  Why don't you make at least a token attempt to research and prove such a strong claim? Most of their open source was acquired, not generated internally, and is demonstrably less active than it was before it became Oracle. Examples include everything from Sun or MySQL. Oracle has probably done more harm to open source than any other company including Microsoft.
  - jiggy2011 12y ago
    Oracle is a better steward of these projects than a bankrupt Sun would have been. Besides , Oracle has been an active contributor to Linux for years.
    - notacoward 12y ago
      Ask anyone who worked on Sun or MySQL whether they think Oracle has been a good steward, even compared to a volunteer-run foundation after the initial sponsor went bankrupt. For example, let's see what Sun's Bryan Cantrill had to say. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zRN7XLCRhc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zRN7XLCRhc No, Oracle isn't a steward. At best they're just using those projects at cash cows. At worst they intended to destroy their erstwhile competitors instead of trying to outdo them. What they are most definitely not doing is devoting the resources necessary to improve or even maintain the health of those projects or their communities. As for contributions to Linux, here are some figures. http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/09/google-and-samsung-soar-into-list-of-top-10-linux-contributors/ http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/09/google... Oracle doesn't even crack the top ten (none/unknown/consultant don't count). For a company that makes so much revenue selling open-source-based products, such as repackaging Red Hat's work and selling against them, 1.3% is a pretty paltry figure. What's really sad is that they contribute even less to anything else, from the Apache or OpenStack foundations down to the zillions of smaller independent projects. Just about the only comparable company with less open-source visibility is Amazon. Lastly, don't think I or others can't see how your claims keep getting changed or reduced as you're proven wrong again and again. First it was about startups not valuing collaboration, then about Oracle producing more useful open source, then about being a good steward of the open source they've acquired . . . and even that isn't true. What's next? Saying we should still worship Larry because (as far as we know) he hasn't actually killed any babies for three whole months? Stop fawning and learn about the topic.
      - jiggy2011 12y ago
        1.3% is likely more than most meaningful contributions of most of the latest web 2.0 of startups. Most startups do not contribute to open source at all, especially not any parts of their core product. The rest of this comment is weird personal attacks.
    - orbifold 12y ago
      They kind of have to contribute to Linux in order for their database software to be fast.
      - jiggy2011 12y ago
        Sure, but we could probably say the same about say Valve's contributions.
    - aswanson 12y ago
      The volunteer community could do a much better job.

davesque 12y ago

At least the culture values it. However, at the end of the day, it depends on who you're working with.