I think your relatives may be right, assuming you are only "contributing" to open source, rather than leading a substantial project, or wrapped up in potentially important research/innovation.<p>It's just a hobby, especially if you are neglecting your "day job", that is, your grades.<p>Painful though this may sound to the HN community, it has always been the case that people who command or deal with "things" are considered lower class than people who command or deal with other people, and I believe this is still the case, even in tech circles. For example, I don't believe any of the current wave of "tech stars" have achieved what they have through technical skill alone. It's mostly been about business acumen, marketing, timing, assembling a good team, and so on.<p>The "redeeming feature" with software is that programming is actually quite a complex skill, still open to innovation, and the demand for it is apparently currently higher than the supply. However I believe Obama, and other figures in powerful positions, are attempting to rectify that situation with their "everyone must learn to code" initiatives, and combined with potential innovation in automation and so on, the ground could quite easily shift.<p>So while your open-source contributions may also be contributing to your resume, you have to consider the bigger picture of economics, and human nature, and decide if your current hobby is really viable as a lifetime career, and whether it can trump the "official" route to success or not.<p>What to do? Charge for your time. If you're any good, someone will pay. You will learn what programming, in the real world, is all about, and your relatives will see someone practicing "grown up" skills rather than merely indulging a hobby.<p>And finally ... "When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished at how much he had learned in seven years." Mark Twain. perhaps shift the quote by a few years.