3 ms·

The paradox these days is "people who build applications by gluing libraries and APIs" are ending up more highly paid/rewarded/recognized than the developers wh

by seiji 11y ago

The paradox these days is "people who build applications by gluing libraries and APIs" are ending up more highly paid/rewarded/recognized than the developers who create the glue and APIs they are actually using. So, all the "two week programing camp" developers launch their 12-hours-from-idea-to-launch apps on top of the work of _actually_ skilled people, and all the reward goes to the final layer, not the underlying support. Right now we're in an environment where, if you do build a better mouse trap, you get $1 while people using your better mouse trap to build Social Mice Death Sphere get $1 million just for adding fancy graphics on top of other people's work. Is the only reason our entire zero-reward open source system stays alive is because nerds are economically irrational and just want to have fun while turning a blind eye to being exploited?

andresmanz 11y ago
Actually, that's one of the things that bothered me for a few months now. I can't see where this is going, yet. And to be honest, it scares me quite a bit.
- seiji 11y ago
  There are options. I think it's disingenuous to think every open source software component should be a VC funded company operating off support contracts to get any reward. That's essentiality the only avenue to "greatness" right now. In a proper world, VCs would recognize all their darling, bespoke, hand-picked companies depend on the public infrastructure of open source (and unaffiliated) developers to super accelerate the growth of their portfolio companies. In a sane world, VCs would see it's in their best interest to create a "public benefit" pool of cash where they fund open source developers to create, maintain, and grow open source projects/platforms at full time senior-engineer salaries. Such a pool of cash (contributed to by multiple VC firms) would be administered by a neutral third party (to avoid nepotism as VCs are wont to do) and have "board-like" oversight and project prioritization (maybe each portfolio company gets X votes towards ranking which features to create next) so resources (cash/salary/infrastructure) go towards projects companies are using and needing to grow. A different option is to encourage VC-funded companies to set aside, say, 5% to 15% of each round for hiring full time open source developers. Open source developers working at a company would be loyal to their open source projects first and foremost, but would accept direction and feature prioritization from the sponsoring company. Just because something isn't a company doesn't mean it's not valuable and doesn't deserve compensation for services rendered, but in the current environment that's the only way forward until more fundamental change appears.
rifung 11y ago
"Is the only reason our entire zero-reward open source system stays alive is because nerds are economically irrational and just want to have fun while turning a blind eye to being exploited?" I would say no, because at least to me it seems like those who are just building applications by "gluing libraries and APIs" need to be compensated more because their jobs are much less interesting both in terms of the actual work and also to future potential employers. I would definitely take a pay cut if I were to be allowed to work on something more interesting provided I still have enough to survive. For those "nerds", why should it bother them that other people are profiting from their work? If anything I would think it should make them happy to know that what they built is helping others all the while keeping them entertained.
bbcbasic 11y ago
> Is the only reason our entire zero-reward open source system stays alive is because nerds are economically irrational and just want to have fun while turning a blind eye to being exploited? 1. Fun is it's own reward of course. 2. Producing open source code you get easy marketing and no risk. Try to sell the same thing requires a whole new skill-set, capital, and you will probably end up with the $0 you'd get from open-sourcing it anyway. 3. Not having a boss (or customer) makes it more fun and allows you to be super-opinionated about how you make the framework. 4. I agree though in principle nerds should be more mercenary. For non-fun stuff, get your employer to pay you to write open-source code, instead of doing it on Saturday at your own expense. For fun-stuff ... well it's fun! Try to make a $ out of it somehow.

by seiji 11y ago

andresmanz 11y ago

Actually, that's one of the things that bothered me for a few months now. I can't see where this is going, yet. And to be honest, it scares me quite a bit.

seiji 11y ago
There are options. I think it's disingenuous to think every open source software component should be a VC funded company operating off support contracts to get any reward. That's essentiality the only avenue to "greatness" right now. In a proper world, VCs would recognize all their darling, bespoke, hand-picked companies depend on the public infrastructure of open source (and unaffiliated) developers to super accelerate the growth of their portfolio companies. In a sane world, VCs would see it's in their best interest to create a "public benefit" pool of cash where they fund open source developers to create, maintain, and grow open source projects/platforms at full time senior-engineer salaries. Such a pool of cash (contributed to by multiple VC firms) would be administered by a neutral third party (to avoid nepotism as VCs are wont to do) and have "board-like" oversight and project prioritization (maybe each portfolio company gets X votes towards ranking which features to create next) so resources (cash/salary/infrastructure) go towards projects companies are using and needing to grow. A different option is to encourage VC-funded companies to set aside, say, 5% to 15% of each round for hiring full time open source developers. Open source developers working at a company would be loyal to their open source projects first and foremost, but would accept direction and feature prioritization from the sponsoring company. Just because something isn't a company doesn't mean it's not valuable and doesn't deserve compensation for services rendered, but in the current environment that's the only way forward until more fundamental change appears.

rifung 11y ago

"Is the only reason our entire zero-reward open source system stays alive is because nerds are economically irrational and just want to have fun while turning a blind eye to being exploited?" I would say no, because at least to me it seems like those who are just building applications by "gluing libraries and APIs" need to be compensated more because their jobs are much less interesting both in terms of the actual work and also to future potential employers. I would definitely take a pay cut if I were to be allowed to work on something more interesting provided I still have enough to survive. For those "nerds", why should it bother them that other people are profiting from their work? If anything I would think it should make them happy to know that what they built is helping others all the while keeping them entertained.

bbcbasic 11y ago

> Is the only reason our entire zero-reward open source system stays alive is because nerds are economically irrational and just want to have fun while turning a blind eye to being exploited? 1. Fun is it's own reward of course. 2. Producing open source code you get easy marketing and no risk. Try to sell the same thing requires a whole new skill-set, capital, and you will probably end up with the $0 you'd get from open-sourcing it anyway. 3. Not having a boss (or customer) makes it more fun and allows you to be super-opinionated about how you make the framework. 4. I agree though in principle nerds should be more mercenary. For non-fun stuff, get your employer to pay you to write open-source code, instead of doing it on Saturday at your own expense. For fun-stuff ... well it's fun! Try to make a $ out of it somehow.