4 ms·

To generalize the point a bit: I don't think enough companies are doing enough to help the ecosystem. Like foresters chopping down the Amazon, or fishers taki

To generalize the point a bit: I don't think enough companies are doing enough to help the ecosystem. Like foresters chopping down the Amazon, or fishers taking the last fish from the ocean, they want to harvest good talent and then stick them in jobs where they can be a cog in the wheel it is hard to grow. They expect other companies to have given them the training or perfect relevant experience. And then we hear complaints there there is a shortage of hackers etc.!

humanrebar 12y ago
I completely agree. I would include supporting open source projects as another way to practice sustainable development. Many kinds of personalities wilt in corporate environments that could work (for relatively cheap wages) on open source projects that benefit everyone.
- bbcbasic 12y ago
  I read Michael Church's blog and from reading that I am convinced that we are our own worst enemy. We spend our spare time writing open source code, which then businesses can profit from without having to pay any of their own staff. I think companies should allow staff to spend some time on open source. It could even benefit the company by having their name associated with it, making it seem like a cool place to work, and having CV's coming in the 'we're hiring' page begging for an interview instead of expensive agencies. But there you go.
  - kyllo 12y ago
    I think it's somewhat of a misconception that most OSS is written for free in professional programmers' spare time. For small projects yes, but corporations aren't using their code anyway. OSS projects that are prominent enough to achieve corporate adoption, often have a staff of core maintainers that are employed by a company that makes money selling support for that OSS software. Why? Because corporations are risk averse and using OSS without a support service contract is a risk they won't take. Unless they are a software company capable of directly supporting the OSS themselves, in which case you also get devs contributing to OSS projects on company time. I don't have statistics for this, but I can easily cite a lot of examples. On the other hand, there are also a lot of contributors that do it for free but they are not doing it purely out of the goodness of their own heart either. A lot of them are doing it either because they are heavy users of the project and/or to practice and build up their portfolio (read: Github profile) to help them get a job.
    - kbart 12y ago
      Not always. TrueCrypt and OpenSSL comes to mind first. Sure, OpenSSL is more supported now, but it happened only after Heartbleed panic, when everyone realised how dependant they are on few overworked and underpaid programmers. Except several well known OSS projects, most others get only peanut money from donations.
      - kyllo 12y ago
        These are sort of the exception that proves the rule, though. Corporations don't want to rely on poorly supported OSS projects, they prefer to pay for support so they can hold someone accountable for fixing it when it breaks. OpenSSL was a bit of a blind spot in this regard. I think corporations just didn't realize they were depending on it and/or how much of a risk factor it was, they learned that the hard way.

humanrebar 12y ago

I completely agree. I would include supporting open source projects as another way to practice sustainable development. Many kinds of personalities wilt in corporate environments that could work (for relatively cheap wages) on open source projects that benefit everyone.

bbcbasic 12y ago
I read Michael Church's blog and from reading that I am convinced that we are our own worst enemy. We spend our spare time writing open source code, which then businesses can profit from without having to pay any of their own staff. I think companies should allow staff to spend some time on open source. It could even benefit the company by having their name associated with it, making it seem like a cool place to work, and having CV's coming in the 'we're hiring' page begging for an interview instead of expensive agencies. But there you go.
- kyllo 12y ago
  I think it's somewhat of a misconception that most OSS is written for free in professional programmers' spare time. For small projects yes, but corporations aren't using their code anyway. OSS projects that are prominent enough to achieve corporate adoption, often have a staff of core maintainers that are employed by a company that makes money selling support for that OSS software. Why? Because corporations are risk averse and using OSS without a support service contract is a risk they won't take. Unless they are a software company capable of directly supporting the OSS themselves, in which case you also get devs contributing to OSS projects on company time. I don't have statistics for this, but I can easily cite a lot of examples. On the other hand, there are also a lot of contributors that do it for free but they are not doing it purely out of the goodness of their own heart either. A lot of them are doing it either because they are heavy users of the project and/or to practice and build up their portfolio (read: Github profile) to help them get a job.
  - kbart 12y ago
    Not always. TrueCrypt and OpenSSL comes to mind first. Sure, OpenSSL is more supported now, but it happened only after Heartbleed panic, when everyone realised how dependant they are on few overworked and underpaid programmers. Except several well known OSS projects, most others get only peanut money from donations.
    - kyllo 12y ago
      These are sort of the exception that proves the rule, though. Corporations don't want to rely on poorly supported OSS projects, they prefer to pay for support so they can hold someone accountable for fixing it when it breaks. OpenSSL was a bit of a blind spot in this regard. I think corporations just didn't realize they were depending on it and/or how much of a risk factor it was, they learned that the hard way.