TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

Ask HN: Why Free Open Source Software?

17 pointsby DerCommodoreover 1 year ago
Sounds like a naive question but: &quot;Why do you create and maintain free open-source software?&quot;<p>I understand the aspects of security, audits, and code improvements. I partially grasp the open culture aspect, as well as the idea of data control.<p>However, it appears to be highly stressful, unrewarding, and most of the time financially unsustainable. Most work also seems to be done &quot;on the side&quot; and &quot;after work&quot;.<p>So why engage in it? Is it because you were unaware initially and are now caught in a cycle of responsibility?<p>It would be wonderful to hear the motivations directly from individuals who develop and support FOSS!<p>PS: Thank you for your service!

14 comments

codetrotterover 1 year ago
What would happen if I didn’t?<p>I’d still make the same things, and I still wouldn’t earn money from it. But in the end it would benefit other people much much less.<p>Sharing the code under a permissive license for anyone that wants it just makes sense.
koutsieover 1 year ago
Because I want to share my solution to some problem or issue I&#x27;ve had; and personally I dont think committing to something comes with that?
评论 #39115471 未加载
starbugsover 1 year ago
I&#x27;ll be blunt. In commercial settings, it is often done for marketing purposes. Well done open source projects can have an edge over the closed source competition just because they are open source. Often commercial support or licenses are offered on top.<p>Of course this does not apply to all FOSS software. Many projects are just born out of a curiosity mindset and, in my experience, the maintenance aspects and time burden is often not taken into account at the beginning.<p>I have seen people break due to the pressure and limited reward in providing open source software continuously. Others strive on it. I think it is generally important to only contribute within your personal limits. It can be challenging to find the right tradeoffs.
bityardover 1 year ago
&gt; However, it appears to be highly stressful, unrewarding, and most of the time financially unsustainable.<p>If this was actually true, there wouldn&#x27;t be any (or very little) open source software. Therefore, it must not be true.<p>I think the only people who say this are those who unfortunately had run-ins with overly-entitled users and trolls and were not mentally prepared to deal with them in a healthy way. Not that they chose the wrong license for their code.<p>Perhaps coding boot camps and courses should spend as much time teaching healthy online social interactions as dispensing raw technical knowledge.
rekadoover 1 year ago
Software is political. It mediates countless human activities and thus establishes the routes on which we can feasibly act when computers are involved. Writing Free Software (i.e. freedom-respecting software) is a political act, and if it&#x27;s done in service of furthering user autonomy it helps us to approximate the necessary goal of gaining power over computers instead of being subject to artifacts produced by programmers in service of their corporate goals.<p>The software artifacts themselves are only a part of the tools we have. Political representation also matters, e.g. through organizations such as the Free Software Foundation Europe, the Software Conservancy, or the EFF.<p>The downsides you mention in writing and maintaining Free Software are not restricted to this activity but to <i>any</i> activity that isn&#x27;t easily exploited for financial gain. (Examples include mentoring people, cultivating and producing art, etc.) This doesn&#x27;t say much about the activities in question but the systems we&#x27;ve collectively put into place that discourage desirable pro-social activities.
rollcatover 1 year ago
I maintain two projects that I use daily for both work and personal stuff, that have attracted a modest, but appreciable amount of contributions. In both cases, the codebases are relatively small (500-1k sloc), and laser-focused on doing exactly one thing well.<p>I&#x27;m very grateful for every contribution, no matter how small - people have found bugs, fixed real problems, done cleanups. The hardest part is telling someone that a feature&#x2F;idea does not have a place in this project. I think the general emphasis on minimalism tends to help here - I&#x27;ve never had to deal with any drama.<p>In terms of workload, again - the minimalist design and extremely clear goals have helped so much. I got trapped by that once before - I volunteered to build an internal automation tool (that saved someone else from doing like 1h&#x2F;d of work), but literally couldn&#x27;t spare 1h&#x2F;mo to maintain it; the cause of the maintenance burden was an influx of changes in the APIs of the external services it integrated. So now I&#x27;m much more careful about volunteering to maintain integrations with external tools; in case of these two projects, the targets are SSH and ZFS - both have extremely stable interfaces.<p>In both cases it was absolutely worth it to publish and (<i>very lightly</i>) promote the projects; since these are &quot;devops&quot; tools that theoretically have unlimited potential for causing great harm, having any response at all helped reassure me that the code I&#x27;m running against production infrastructure has fewer unknown bugs. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;i.pinimg.com&#x2F;474x&#x2F;2f&#x2F;e0&#x2F;87&#x2F;2fe08785e8eb112cada6da789e6ba0f4.jpg" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;i.pinimg.com&#x2F;474x&#x2F;2f&#x2F;e0&#x2F;87&#x2F;2fe08785e8eb112cada6da789...</a><p>The projects: &lt;<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;rollcat&#x2F;judo">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;rollcat&#x2F;judo</a>&gt;; &lt;<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;rollcat&#x2F;zfs-autosnap">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;rollcat&#x2F;zfs-autosnap</a>&gt;.
crq-ymlover 1 year ago
I would like to say something from a somewhat disillusioned &quot;FOSS agnostic&quot; perspective. It&#x27;s not about the cost or workload, but the imagined premise: that we are making software that &quot;the user controls&quot;.<p>Well, we already failed at the user being in control if the software developers are being asked to do things all the time. Or rather, the control experienced is either &quot;the developer is servile&quot; or &quot;the user goes out of their way to make modifications&quot;. The balance most often struck when the project has full-time maintainers is &quot;a corporation, not a human, is the user&quot;.<p>Further, there is an overwhelming tendency for the software stack to move directionally around a few of the largest dependencies. Old FOSS software can be downloaded and often built, but it becomes obsolete in subtle ways as the ecosystem assumptions change - dependencies deprecate in newer versions, protocols and interfaces change. And the more the software tries to leverage open ecosystems at the top of the stack, the faster it is likely to fall out of date. Languages are adopted not because of the language but because of a library that solves a hair-on-fire issue. The herd is stampeding.<p>Put in other words, there&#x27;s a growing tension between &quot;open&quot; software qualities and &quot;archival&quot; software qualities, which has gotten me more engaged with retrocomputing again. I&#x27;ve picked up Forth, this time not to make a Forth(the common mode of engagement) but with an eye to doing small applications in it and using its compilation abilities to create precisely the abstractions I need; my goal is to stop talking to other software so much and to talk to I&#x2F;O more. If I stick to that, and write a system that only builds from the tiny core that is &quot;the computer language&quot; (as Chuck Moore calls it), the software will archive easily.<p>There are some key limitations to the Forth model, where it rubs up against modern protocols, which, to the Forther, are always gratuitously complex. But addressing this limitation in the moment is mostly a matter of walking over to the stack de jure and writing the same clumsy glue code everyone else is writing every day.<p>There is an additional problem of there being no guarantee that I&#x27;d end up with a system that the user agrees that they can control - a common complaint levelled at Forth, Lisp and other &quot;extensible&quot; systems - but this is potentially a good application for generative AI. Provided I can sufficiently instruct the AI in the system&#x27;s operation, it can satisfy both minor maintenance and documentation roles.
Gysover 1 year ago
A little off topic maybe, but you could visit Fossdem in Brussels: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;fosdem.org&#x2F;2024&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;fosdem.org&#x2F;2024&#x2F;</a><p>It has about 50k attendees each year interested in, working with and&#x2F;or maintaining foss!
qqmzzoiziozover 1 year ago
Have a look here. Fantastic perspective on &quot;why&quot; FOSS, and why people do it:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=qVMo54BUqEA" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=qVMo54BUqEA</a>
frmdstryrover 1 year ago
Simple, because I use foss.<p>I&#x27;m always amused when people bash on free software, then you ask if they wrote all their own software, libraries, compilers, etc.. and hear silence.
评论 #39116670 未加载
tshirttimeover 1 year ago
Somewhere in a programmer&#x27;s 30s he stops progressing along the axis of money, and can only move along the axis of influence.
xigoiover 1 year ago
Because in the software world, when I make something for myself, it costs me pretty much nothing to share it with others.
ho_schiover 1 year ago
It makes me happy to create and maintain things. I hope others do so, too. Which allows me to use Linux.<p>A generalization of this question would be &quot;Why people do want improve things for humankind?&quot;.<p>If you ask me our answers to economy are bad. Especially capitalism (greed) and communism (force) failed.<p><i>Star Trek</i> gives some clues about how to solve it properly. Without the need to gather “value points” hopefully we all would just do what is considered helpful. I would still program, but stuff which I consider more sensful. A doctor is probably still fighting cancer, minus paper works for insurances. Others foster plants. Some will clean water because people like clean water and they find it a fulfilling thing.
toofyover 1 year ago
(<i>apologies for the overly sappy bits near the end--im just forever flat out awed by the geniuses from the early days of the interwebbers</i>)<p>there are a lot of reasons why FOSS. a few of them:<p>1. Dont Repeat Yourself. i can&#x27;t imagine how stunted we would be if companies, organizations, and personal projects didn&#x27;t have access to simply grab a bit of code which had already been written and shared. the amount of time and energy wasted if they had to code what had already been solved would just be unfathomable. with sharing, we can just grab it and drop it into the project and move on to solve other issues. when i think about the society sized scale of where our code is used, open software and by extension, Dont Repeat Yourself has been just unimaginably important.<p>2. sharing knowledge is as old as humanity--its a large piece of how we thrived. if i share it, it now belongs to us, all of us. rich poor and everyone in between. all of us. there is no class involved, there is no gatekeeping. rich and poor alike can use it. i&#x27;ve seen a number of people either imply or outright declare that open source is anti-capitalist class warfare, which is just nonsense. its the opposite. if someone locks the knowledge away and limits who can use it, thats much closer to class warfare than choosing to share it with <i>everyone</i>.<p>3. i don&#x27;t mean this next bit to sound pointed towards you at all, you seem like you&#x27;re genuinely curious and likely read the talking point somewhere else. but i do wish people would stop perpetuating this myth: the stressful&#x2F;financially unsustainable bit. if you don&#x27;t want to do open source or your circumstances don&#x27;t currently afford the time, etc.., don&#x27;t do it. its that simple. no one is obligated to support or upkeep their projects. most of the active projects are kept up because the creators and community enjoy it. there are countless highly forked projects where teh author has clearly stated, &quot;this is 100% as-is. i apologize but i just don&#x27;t have the time or energy to upkeep or support beyond sharing the code.&quot; so they share it and thats..that. im not sure where this myth has come about implying that you&#x27;re somehow automatically tied down for years or something. ive a few active projects which myself and others upkeep mainly because we enjoy it, enjoy the community, and the friends surrounding it. conversely, i also have many projects which i have set free and haven&#x27;t touched since yet they still get forked. sure, there are cases where a few loud people will be annoyed... but i mean... oh well. almost always, if you&#x27;re human about it from the beginning and make it clear &quot;apologies, but i really wanted to share this, but i don&#x27;t have the time to do anything beyond that&quot; you&#x27;re fine. people typically get it.<p>4. and a big one for me is i spent far too many nights, weeks, and months being omg_so_inspired reading old archived mailing lists, forums, books etc on the subject of the early days of the internet. these people werent discussing how they could lock away all of their work and hide it from the world. while there did seem to be some companies who were determined to build walled gardens, ultimately they failed miserably compared to the open internet. (beware the upcoming tangent: we currently see current iterations of them trying to wall us into their gardens with insta, twitter, tiktok, etc where this same group of investors are desperately trying to convince us &quot;its only successful if <i>everyone</i> is in one place at once time&quot;. but we see these places crumble over and over again. we see this in so many graveyards of formerly semi-popular &quot;social media&quot; sites. yet the same group of investors still keep trying to convince us over and over again. &quot;<i>all in the same place! everyone here! if everyones not here its a _failure_.</i>&quot; its pretty clear how it will ultimately end though... back to <i>many</i> spaces rather <i>one</i>--the open internet. we&#x27;ll eventually realize humans are humans. every city has <i>many many many</i> different gathering places, not just one giant room but many types of bars, many types of restaurants, many types of parks, many types of neighborhoods, etc.) everytime this happens its just becomes more and more clear how wise the early internet thinkers were, absolute mental and heartfilled giants. they ran head first into big big big questions and kept coming back to &quot;openness is the key for <i>everyone</i>&quot;<p>i wasn&#x27;t lucky enough to have been born yet to interact with these giants during those days, but i grew up seeing the outcomes. one thing that seems true time and time again, from infrastructure all the way to the end user, the open aspect is the key. its ultimately what keeps us on a somewhat level playing field, despite certain peoples repeated attempts to lock us into their personal fiefdoms. if we want freedom to leave and roam wherever we want, the only way to have that is openness. every time these same few investors try to convince you that &quot;its only successful if we&#x27;re <i>all</i> here, in <i>my</i> fifedom&quot; we&#x27;ll always have the freedom to roam to wherever we want.<p>many of us see FOSS as the only way to keep any semblance of true freedom because they <i>will</i> keep trying to corral us. whether they try to claim a &#x27;town square [lol]&#x27; or whether they try to own our attention span, as the early internet giants figured out, one of the best foundations, one of the surefire ways we can keep from being corraled is sharing code.