Multiple things:
- get rid of mandatory mailinglists
- use a modern git flow without emails
- get the hell off of discord
- don’t make me a “maintainer”. I write code, I love it. Don’t Peter Principle me
- pay me if I’m supposed to care
The goddamn Linux Foundation is investing more into AI than friggin Linux. They could be hiring hundreds of staff to work on Linux with the billions they shove unto AI. What the fuck are they doing? Mozilla is another offender.
Open source foundations with money should be using it to develop open source.
Also, on greybeard conferences: allow virtual participation please? My company isn’t going to give me 4 days off to travel somewhere for one day, have a 2 day conference, then take another day to get back. Nor am I going to pay 200+€ or something as an entrance fee on top of my ticket halfway around the world.
Ironically, I think it’s the younger ones the ones pushing for discord the most. Some projects opened a discord because it actually made it more attractive to young people.
The question is how to make an open source alternative more attractive.
You can make a Discord server in like 1 second for free. It’s got mostly good enough tools for managing the community. I get the appeal. If you already use it then it’s super easy to just use it for that too. (Except on Android, where you can’t easily switch accounts. Maybe iPhone has the same problem though.)
Matrix has the most potential. It was the most admired communication tool in the stackoverflow survey last year.
Mailing lists are pretty awesome. They’re like a decentralized forum. There are even good web UIs!
That said, submitting and reviewing patches over email suuucks.
Wrestling to get email to properly bottom post is 99.999% of the battle. (Except the code review, is rather just pull it in locally)
mailing lists
So so true. Mailing lists suck. I’d rather use Discord. (As in I hate mailing lists that much.) Bring back forums!
In 2023 the organization reported significant revenues, totaling approximately $262.6 million.
They are spending BILLIONS on AI!!!
They are doing what they intended to do. It’s just not in line with your agenda.
OK, I was wrong about the billions.
They are doing what they intended to do. It’s just not in line with your agenda.
The Linux Foundation spent 2% on linux kernel support in 2023.
Linux is “my agenda”. It was me who put Linux in the name “Linux Foundation”. Me and me alone. 😂
You just misinterpret their agenda. They were never in line with you
Young people today are struggling to make ends meet - they don’t have enough comfort and free time to be able to donate their labor.
I wish I had one manday a week to contribute to the libraries my company uses. I usually do it in my work hours when I find a serious bug or need a new feature.
I fixed a bug in an open source project we use and got into trouble for it :|
Ditch the company and set their offices ablaze!
steal from work
Don’t use company resources (like your laptop) to do it.
That’s like saying they don’t have enough comfort and free time to do art. Actually, the statements are identical. We create not because we can but because we must.
I think you’ll find loads of young people without time for art, too.
Every artist sacrifices other things so that they can do art. I get that we have less to sacrifice than we used to but in objective, absolute, historical terms, we are still sooooo fucking wealthy and have so many opportunities and resources at our disposal. And I say this as someone with a 13k annual income who contributes to FOSS projects.
Oh man you’re so close to getting the point…
We don’t have enough comfort and free time to do art! That’s an actual legitimate thing that’s going on right now
Were I to reply I would merely be repeating what I said to @ava@beehaw.org
Our civilization demands that I be profitable to a parasite who leeches a majority of my labour’s value in order to accumulate obscene levels of wealth.
Without exorbitant amounts of time spent maintaining that profitability, I will end up poor, homeless, and eventually dead from exposure. This leaves vanishingly little time to spend on open source work, regardless of how intellectually and ethically attractive it may be.
But open-source doesn’t always mean working for free, nor does it mean people do it for purely ethical (or socialist?) reason.
There are lots of reason why open-source is attractive after discounting ethics and money. I imagine being credited for being a major contributor to a popular open-source project would mean better job opportunity in the competitive tech job market. The gig doesn’t directly offer you money, but it does gravitate the right company that has the money to fund your work they find very valuable. In a sense, this isn’t that far from how capitalism work – credits are due to the people who brings most value to the society, whether the source of the software are open to all or not.
This is of course a very superficial statement to make, but I remember Eric Raymond wrote about this in more a detailed (and more convincing!) manner in The Cathedral and the Bazaar.
So… it pays in exposure?
big flashback to my freelance days.
fuck working for free in the hopes the project magically becomes super relevant overnight, and all the people who defend this.
if you want me to take on more responsability than i want to, you better be paying me.
open-source doesn’t always mean working for free,
Sponsorship brings goal conflicts, and locks both sponsor and sponsee into a death spiral of software like a dog with one true master and a master who can never get a new dog until this one is dead.
If you look at property rights, the contrast is even stronger. The employer owns 100% of the property rights to the produced outputs and owes 100% of the liabilities for the used-up inputs. Meanwhile, workers qua employee receive 0% of both. This is despite their joint de facto responsibility for producing those results violating the basic principle of justice.
We need to move towards a copyfarleft model that considers the rights of both software users and developers unlike copyleft
that considers the rights of both software users and developers unlike copyleft
Kind of in the vein of what Redis attempted to with its relicense to SSPL
I have a huge soft spot for SSPL. I believe the FSF is too ideological and the OSI has conflicts of interest and that’s mainly why it wasn’t accepted. It’s unfortunate, because a new, stronger AGPL that closes more loop holes would’ve been amazing.
I wouldn’t say FSF is too ideological. They just don’t have a political strategy for how they will bring about the changes they desire. To really change things towards a new mode of production, you need a way for people in the new mode of production to earn a living. Also, their ideology is wrong in its lack of emphasis on software workers’ rights and the relations of production
Far left as in explicit restrictions on capitalist firms using the software without paying for it while still allowing full software freedom for worker coops, which don’t violate workers’ rights.
Copyfarleft should set up a whole family of licenses of varying strengths and its own alternative ideology from the FSF. The first principle is an almost complete rejection of permissive open source licenses as enabling capitalist free riding @programming
I’m just picking on a point that’s not relevant to your comment’s core idea, I’m not saying we shouldn’t share software or other goods and services with worker coops:
worker coops, which don’t violate workers’ rights.
Under capitalism worker cooperatives will also violate the rights of its workers even if less than traditional companies, because that’s what capitalism demands for their survival on the market.
I think it’s kind of challenging to legally define what makes a party “worthy” of making use of the software or digital work. I think you would need to go on a case-by-case basis, but at that point it probably makes more sense to just make software source-available and actively encourage people to reach out to you to get permission to use the software and to modify and redistribute it.
I have a specific theory of rights in mind. This theory of rights proposes worker coops as the only rights respecting way of organizing labor relations based on the inalienability of responsibility. I’m not using rights in a general vague sense to refer to harm.
Worker coops view workers differently than capitalist firms. They see labor as a fixed factor e.g. worker coops cut wages not jobs during economic, downturns.
The theory of rights I have in mind can fit in a license @programming
I feel like there’s maybe also a bit of disappointment in open-source going around? The last few years have shown that it’s not the silver bullet, it was thought to be.
Companies will find ways to relicense contributions via CLAs, or to just straight up violate your copyright with GenAI. And even projects that technically tick all the open-source boxes, like Chromium and parts of Android, can and do exert plenty control over users, because no one has the manpower to fork them.
Then there’s plenty unethical companies making use of open-source, and they rarely contribute back to make up for it.
Nevermind that the open-source infrastructure is owned by corporations (GitHub, Discord etc.).And it feels ever more present to me that publishing things as open-source means maintenance work, which can quickly lead to burnout. People just expect you to provide updates, no matter what your license text says.
Like, I certainly don’t either think that not doing open-source is any closer to a solution. But I’m finally at a point where I feel like my code is useful and good enough to publish, and it just feels like either my only ‘users’ are corporations scraping my code, or if I promote it, then it’s just a ton of maintenance work waiting for me.
I don’t know, maybe that’s also just a me-problem…
And it feels ever more present to me that publishing things as open-source means maintenance work, which can quickly lead to burnout. People just expect you to provide updates, no matter what your license text says.
David Beazley, big in the python world and one of the OGs of the python ecosystem from back in the 90s, kinda had a moment about this a couple of years ago.
He has or had a few somewhat popular libraries and liked to write things and put them out there. But, IIRC, got fed up of the consumeristic culture that had taken over open source.
I think he put it along the lines of “The kind of open source I’m into is the ‘here’s a cool thing I made, feel free to use it however you want’ kind” … and didn’t have positive things to say about the whole “every open source author is now a brand and vendor” thing.
The result of which, IIRC, was him archiving all of his libraries on GitHub. From a distance, it also seemed like he felt burnt out from a hacking culture in which he no longer felt like he belonged.
I figure business makes quite enough money off my efforts during the day without me also generating value for them for free in the evening.
In 2002 we were firing all our mentors.
The greybeards now burned out from maintaining our foundational stuff have no one who’s learned the 'why’s of best practice under a good mentor, nor have time to donate to open source - and ‘fuck you pay me’ is cute for all the strings it has, btw, but your mentor would have taught you that.
Some of us, worried at distros drinking IBMs (then redhat) kool-aid of badly built shit who raised concerns were labeled ‘just old’; so, like a COVID nurse we said ‘no u’ and focused on other tools and projects.
Things are gonna die. Somewhere in there things will become poorly-maintained. After a dark time of shit massively sucking - and probably another init daemon because blobs are sexy? - it will get better.
But by then apophis will drag our moon into a declining orbit and make us focus on nuking the moon to push it back up.
what do you mean by the Fuck you pay me thing?
What can members of the community who can’t code help with?
Depends on your skills. Documentation is always useful. If you have language skills, translation of documentation or helping create language packs/translations.
That’s just off the top of my head. I’m sure if I thought about it, I could come up with more.
Good advice. I want to add the option to offer money or hardware support. Writing helpful Bug Reports is also a good, especially if you really care with testing. Maybe even do Testing of software and functionality, Beta Tester with reports. Less technical would be designing logos or buttons or any graphical activity for documentation and websites, or for the application itself.
Documentation and Bug Reports are probably the top way to help if you can’t code.
Thanks! I will look into joining.
Documentation, bug triage and many other non technical tasks
Can’t or don’t want to?
I got into a project starting out with translations. Then community support. Then wrote a web interface to the desktop/server application. Then got into the project itself.
Many projects have a contributing document or page with pointers. In general, being part of the community, providing information or support, improving documentation, or the bug tracker (reproduction, labeling, discussing/guiding), translating.
What can be done and what makes sense varies a lot depending on project size and popularity too.
Project management. See for instance this talk: https://youtu.be/u3PJaiSpbmc?si=FbQGTfx4nERCb0R-
You can kinda see this in things like modding communities or anything piracy related too. Users just want easy solutions even if it’s at the expense of creators, and creators are doing it more and more for money rather than any personal drive or satisfaction. I can’t believe we’ve reached a point where even mods are being locked behind paywalls, need to be commissioned or sometimes have entire teams funded by patreon to work on them, it’s just another business nowadays.
I was tempted to disagree, but the Patreon subscription paywalls is a very good point. Are we doing less free work for the public good (or at least accessible to the public), or is it a prevalent niche that’s very visible, without influence on those that volunteer work like before?
The thought I had before that was that maybe the creative output changed. People build in Minecraft and VRChat, in hosted platforms. This may be different to before, where mods were separate things and communities.
I still see a lot of voluntary open work. But I’m not confident in assessing it’s prevalence or shift.
What’s needed is renewed ethos, not just fresh blood.
What’s needed is people who actually like the projects, on the technical level, and use them daily. Not people who are just trying to maintain an open-source “portfolio” they can showcase in pursuit of landing big corpo job.
A “portfolio” which also needs to, in their mind, project certain culture war prioritizations and positionings that are fully inline with the ones corpos are projecting.
It will be interesting to see how much of the facade of morality will remain if these corpo projections change, or when the corpo priorities and positionings, by design, don’t care, at best, about little unimportant stuff like American-uniparty-assisted genocide! We got to see murmurs of that in the last few months.
Will the facade be exposed, or will it simply change face? What if a job was on the line?
I’m reminded of a certain person with the initials S.K, who was a Rust official, and a pretend Windows-user in hopes of landing a Microsoft job (he pretty much said as much). He was also a big culture-war-style moral posturer. And a post-open-source world hypothesiser.
Was it weird for such a supposed moral “progressive” to be a big nu-Microsoft admirer? and one who used his position to push for the idea that anyone who maintained a classical open-source/free-software position towards Microsoft is a fanatic? No, it wasn’t. He was one of many after all.
All these things go hand in hand. And if you think this is a derailing comment that went way off the rails, then I hope you maintain the same position about the effects of all this on the open-source and free-software world itself.
Okay I am not going to lie I am pretty lost as to what you are saying here. I read this twice and I am still confused.
What does working on open source projects have to do with the culture war? Also what do you mean by culture war? Do you believe like some leftists do that it’s all a distraction? Or do you think like the right wing do that it’s a leftist conspiracy to changes some countries values? Or another third thing I don’t know about?
Who is an American uniparty?
By new Microsoft do you mean how they have changed with regards to Open Source? I mean they actually release open source software now, and don’t fight as much against Linux and other communities. Presumably because they realised they can’t fight Linux. Do you think this is a bad thing? They obviously aren’t a benevolent force for good, but I personally prefer the new attitude to the old one at least.
I might have missed if it was in the article. Sorry in advance for that.
Do we have any idea regarding the top 3 or top 5 reasons that drove potential contributors away? Not in terms of hypotheses, asking about actual studies, interviews, surveys, etc
This is the best summary I could come up with:
True, the Linux Foundation events all now come with child support for young parents, but my expert guestimate is the average age is still well into the 30s.
More specifically, the Cloud Native Computing Foundations (CNCF)'s KubeCons have many tracks for people who want to learn the ins and outs of Kubernetes and other cloud-native programs.
The OSPO for Good conference proposed solutions that have been suggested before, such as hackathons, to engage young developers in open source coding.
As David Nalley, president of the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) and director of open source strategy at Amazon Web Services (AWS), said at the conference: "Getting people to maintain old code isn’t easy.
… I thought if I could hold on just a bit longer, I could help maintain the focus on long term development to improve the user experience.
She also runs the LFX Mentorship program, which seeks to sponsor and train the next generation of open source developers and leaders.
The original article contains 741 words, the summary contains 161 words. Saved 78%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Blood for the blood god?