TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Give away your code, but never your time

430 点作者 brakmic超过 7 年前

43 条评论

ef4超过 7 年前
Color me deeply skeptical of the suggestion to try to lock people out of community participation unless they pay.<p>The real secret to not burning out is to scale up the set of maintainers in proportion to the users. You do that by lowering the barriers to involvement, not raising them.<p>Most maintainers err on the side of controlling too much. Which makes them into bottlenecks.<p>One or two good PRs is enough for me to give you commit bit on my repos. This has never yet resulted in abuse, and has brought in a many helpful co-maintainers.<p>Bad commits can be easily reverted. Whereas giving people a bit of trust often inspires them to help more.
评论 #15215458 未加载
评论 #15216213 未加载
评论 #15214864 未加载
评论 #15217551 未加载
评论 #15218167 未加载
评论 #15217660 未加载
评论 #15214796 未加载
评论 #15215529 未加载
评论 #15218115 未加载
LeoNatan25超过 7 年前
&gt; <i>We also need to bury the idea that any developer who submits an issue or pull request is automatically entitled to the attention of a maintainer.</i><p>&gt; <i>The message to users should be “do whatever you want with the code, but pay us for our time if you want to influence the project’s future.”</i><p>So, for me, this goes against the reasons I decide to give my personal time to the community. For me, creating an open source project is a contract with the community, and part of that contract is to assist members of this community that might require features or have issues. Statements such as the ones quoted above go wholeheartedly against my idea of an open source community, and I have a feeling most of the open source community shares this sentiment.<p>Breaking this contract would be, for me, a cease and desist of the project. For me, it is very simple, if a personal project is stagnated, that’s acceptable as no one owes anyone here anything. If a company’s open source projects go stagnant, but the company continues to boast how pro-OSS they are, it is a cardinal sin, as they have broken this contract with their users. This may be a naive look, but I don’t think a company should be able to have it both ways—boast about its OSS projects, lure people in and then ignore them and move on to their next PR OSS project.<p>Donations are a different proposition than the suggestions in the article, and should definitely be encouraged.
评论 #15217101 未加载
评论 #15216333 未加载
评论 #15214841 未加载
评论 #15217376 未加载
metafunctor超过 7 年前
I led a small open source project more than a decade ago.<p>Most people involved had more time than money. I&#x27;m quite certain that trying to charge an annual fee from members would have killed the entire project before it was even born.<p>Introducing money to the equation changes everything. People start to look at the project as a product they are buying, instead of a cause they are contributing to.<p>I believe the author of this article is deeply misguided. Money is not a way to make open projects work, but it is a good way to kill them.
评论 #15217193 未加载
cavneb超过 7 年前
As much as I agree with the sentiment behind this post, I disagree with the implementation. The nature of open source code is collaboration. Paying for collaboration seems like it would hinder progress altogether and possibly direct the project into a direction that is not suitable for the poor majority not paying. One more thing that bothers me is that money for maintenance should not come from developers. This is like robbing Peter to pay Paul.<p>Disclaimer: I am the CEO of Code Sponsor (<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;codesponsor.io" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;codesponsor.io</a>)<p>Code Sponsor is trying to help provide those who are maintaining OSS projects with untethered sponsorship funds. They can go about doing their business on the projects and be making money through sponsor-based ad revenue. This provides them with the incentive and finances to justify continued support on those projects that end up being abandoned when unfunded.<p>I agree that this is a HUGE problem that needs to be addressed. Code Sponsor&#x27;s approach is to go where money can scale: marketing budgets.
评论 #15215344 未加载
评论 #15215522 未加载
isaaclyman超过 7 年前
Devil&#x27;s advocate: How about an issue&#x2F;PR tracker that lets users pay for priority? A simple bidding system. If BigCorp International is willing to pay $200&#x2F;hour for IE10 support, they can be next on your list. And afterward, an bug with significant community support totalling $50&#x2F;hour, pledged by 50 different users. With allowances for your own preferences as maintainer and the needs of the community, of course, but giving people who care the most the opportunity to put their money where their pain is.
评论 #15215567 未加载
评论 #15216342 未加载
评论 #15214933 未加载
评论 #15216698 未加载
评论 #15215855 未加载
geerlingguy超过 7 年前
I haven&#x27;t seen any large scale, long-term open source projects succeed with a &#x27;pay to play&#x27; process; what usually happens is the original maintainers realize that even with some amount of compensation, they still don&#x27;t like scratching <i>other</i> people&#x27;s itch when it comes to their project.<p>And then they realize that the amount of people&#x2F;companies even willing to pay at all is a tiny fraction of 1% of their potential target market.<p>The better advice is to do what you want, know your limits, consider sharing some maintainance responsibility with another committer or two, and don&#x27;t ever feel obligated to do anything with other people&#x27;s issues and PRs. It&#x27;s nice to do, but if it&#x27;s interfering with anything else, or taking away valuable time, ignore them or just blanket close them, with a note that it&#x27;s not something you&#x27;d be interested in maintaining.<p>The great thing about open source is someone can fork your code and do what they need. You have no obligation to help them, it&#x27;s just nice if you can. And if they don&#x27;t get that, that&#x27;s not your problem.
评论 #15216856 未加载
评论 #15219096 未加载
ThrustVectoring超过 7 年前
I think what open source needs is some very deliberate price discrimination. Have the license be free to the vast majority of users, and cost money for large corporations that can damn well afford it. Not, like, large amounts of money, just something vaguely close to the all-in cost of one full time developer.<p>Basically, &quot;BSD, unless you&#x27;re a $1B+ valued company that is not paying our software foundation $10k&#x2F;mo&quot;.
评论 #15215219 未加载
评论 #15215147 未加载
评论 #15219087 未加载
firasd超过 7 年前
The key suggestion:<p>&quot;bury the idea that any developer who submits an issue or pull request is automatically entitled to the attention of a maintainer... If you’re the leader of one of these projects, charge an annual fee for community membership. Open source, closed community. The message to users should be “do whatever you want with the code, but pay us for our time if you want to influence the project’s future.” Lock non-paying users out of the forum and issue tracker, and ignore their emails.&quot;
评论 #15214717 未加载
评论 #15214736 未加载
bkovacev超过 7 年前
I dislike the key suggestion. What&#x27;s the point of open-source - if not to give back? It&#x27;s a developer&#x27;s codex&#x2F;morale to answer.<p>It seems the author is salty about the fact he doesn&#x27;t make money from open source, but is investing a lot of time. Well my dear colleague, offer support to the bigger companies that use your software in production or use that software to sell another. Simple.<p>Open source was never meant to be for-profit, at least from my understanding. Something you give back to the community, because you have taken a lot from it in the first place. You dislike new issues by non-payees? Well, write better docs. Someone is also giving YOU time by submitting that issue or by finding a bug - so should you pay them money for testing? Be grateful.<p>Should we all pay for the open source tools&#x2F;frameworks we use? I can guarantee this would cause riots. If you don&#x27;t want to contribute to OSS don&#x27;t, but please do not whine about it.
评论 #15215303 未加载
morgante超过 7 年前
The notion of charging people to be part of the community seems like a terrific way to immediately kill any semblance of community.<p>Realistically, the only people who will pay a membership fee are those who can charge it to a company. That means you&#x27;ll lose all the people hacking on the project in <i>their</i> free time.<p>Personally, I contributed a lot more to open source when I was in college and had more free time than money. There&#x27;s no way I would have paid to be able to contribute.<p>The solution is really just to have lower expectations on maintainers, both around timely responses&#x2F;support (want fast support, pay for it) and improvements. They can and should also be more liberal with adding maintainers.
评论 #15215046 未加载
zzzeek超过 7 年前
I shudder to think of the sense of entitlement some of my users would have towards getting me to fix their pet issues that they had to <i>pay</i> to tell me about. This article got a lot right but then charging for community membership is a super bad idea.
throw2016超过 7 年前
The open source community defies definition. It&#x27;s a diverse multitude of people with different motivations. This will ensure its survival even under challenging circumstances.<p>There is a risk, maybe significant, of the generational hand off. A lot of folks who built this rich legacy were academics and pioneers motivated by ideology. Software has moved on from early pioneers motivated by liberty and freedom issues to being subsumed by establishment interests.<p>At the moment there is also widespread cynicism about ideology in general and a lot of open source is increasingly developed by corporate interests. This could have repercussions for the &#x27;nature&#x27; of open source as institutions and a connection to individuals beyond their identity as &#x27;users&#x27; has not really been built.
jamiesonbecker超过 7 年前
Here are a few ideas off the top of my head for a purely open source (non-commercial) project:<p>* custom features<p>* prioritization<p>* training<p>* enterprise support<p>* sponsorships<p>* invites to free conferences and swag<p>* t-shirts and swag sales<p>* commercial software integrations&#x2F;partnerships<p>* brand sponsorship&#x2F;inclusion on docs&#x2F;websites&#x2F;etc.<p>* professionally managed and scalable hosting<p>What did I miss?
评论 #15215371 未加载
partycoder超过 7 年前
I disagree.<p>By using a small project and reporting bugs you are helping to test it, giving feedback and allowing it to grow.<p>Also, reporting a bug sometimes saves the maintainers the effort of finding the bug themselves... something that actually takes time.<p>A better policy is to encourage people to help fix the bugs they report, with a test case or a pull request if possible... something actionable.
评论 #15215280 未加载
qaq超过 7 年前
The dude&#x27;s key project has a total of 4 contributors (working at the same company?) 0 forks and 0 stars. I am sure we should all follow his guidance on the subject.
hyperpallium超过 7 年前
&gt; annual fee for community membership<p>Sleepycat did this <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Sleepycat_Software" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Sleepycat_Software</a> and seemed to work out for them.<p>But if opensource truly is infrastructure, why not nationalize it? i.e. government pays maintainers a subsistence wage (provided they meet some scale crtieria, perhaps similar to automatic royalties for pop-song airplay).<p>Users (i.e. big corporations) would pay a levy to fund this. Of course, it could be set up privately, independent of a government.
评论 #15216853 未加载
评论 #15216423 未加载
评论 #15216326 未加载
austincheney超过 7 年前
What works for me is locking down the application behind a plan. Users can submit whatever feedback, bugs, suggestions, enhancements, and wishlists they want. These contributions are important, but they won&#x27;t change the roadmap.<p>This only works when an open source application becomes ubiquitous or nearly ubiquitous and the users want it everywhere. Popularity and consumption rates are irrelevant to whether this works. This is because ubiquitous software solves an extremely common problem and takes too much effort to replace with an alternate solution. Ubiquitous software is not necessarily good software.<p>When somebody wants a change in the roadmap they can pay you money to compensate you for the additional time it takes to pivot into another direction. You probably aren&#x27;t going to make any money like this. Then benefits of this approach is that the maintainers won&#x27;t burn out. They just work to the plan and occasionally respond to issues. The software has a transparent and published trajectory.
评论 #15215376 未加载
davidgerard超过 7 年前
&gt; <i>When I say “open source”, I mean code licensed in a way that it can be used to build proprietary things.</i><p>This redefinition of a basic term should have been at the beginning, not the end.
评论 #15214972 未加载
kalat超过 7 年前
The author has many good points however it&#x27;s either his writing style (thinking), ideas, or conceptual mental model where he is missing the point of open source. It is actually a bit confusing. His title doesn&#x27;t correlate with what he writes later which contains several somewhat vacuous statements. People love to work together and produce something for the common good, humanity wouldn&#x27;t be here without that good feeling and collaborative spirit. open source comes from people&#x27;s time, time has led us to a point where open source is everywhere. Not all people are greedy, every coder owes another coder their livelihood. I think this draft just needed like 100 more edits. Also, &quot;Many&quot; does not equal 3.
walterbell超过 7 年前
In the proposed approach, what would happen to a high-quality and desirable code contribution from someone who cannot afford to pay for their code to be reviewed?
5_minutes超过 7 年前
I always wonder where coders find the time to significantly contribute to Opensouce projects - which many seem to do - after their day job, having played and eaten with their kids, and were an attentful husband.
评论 #15214903 未加载
评论 #15214822 未加载
评论 #15216073 未加载
评论 #15214993 未加载
评论 #15215238 未加载
评论 #15215001 未加载
评论 #15216835 未加载
评论 #15215880 未加载
mperham超过 7 年前
Yep, that agrees with one rule I&#x27;ve found very helpful in my Sidekiq project:<p>All free&#x2F;OSS work&#x2F;discussion is done in public.<p>Never private email, never Slack. Always open an issue. Security issues are the exception here. No one should get to monopolize my time without paying.
innocentoldguy超过 7 年前
I like the idea of donating to projects that benefit me, so the developers working on those projects have a financial incentive to continue doing so. For example, I&#x27;m interested in the Crystal language, so I give the project $10 a month. Yeah, it isn&#x27;t much, but if enough people did this, it would allow open-source developers to make a living out of these projects, rather than being enslaved by them to the point they burn out.
评论 #15214936 未加载
paxys超过 7 年前
I don&#x27;t get the jump the author makes from &quot;your time is valuable&quot; (understandable) to &quot;you should have to pay to contribute to open-source projects&quot; (umm, what).
jondubois超过 7 年前
I run a relatively popular open source project. I think that there are some strange forces in the tech industry which make it nearly impossible to get big companies to use your project.<p>Maybe it&#x27;s not right but I really feel like not being based in Silicon Valley has something to do with it... Related to branding, social networks, bloggers. Outside of SV, it&#x27;s very tough.<p>Only small startups were using my project initially; literally hundreds or maybe even thousands of small startups but not one large corporation (that I knew about).<p>It&#x27;s been 4 years though and the good thing is that now several of the startups that were using my project got really big and are growing fast. Still no big corporations but it doesn&#x27;t matter anymore. Me and one other contributor are now able to make money offering consulting to those startups which grew. Also we have a sponsorship deal now.
c3534l超过 7 年前
Maybe write your article after you&#x27;ve done this and tell us how it worked.
cdaven超过 7 年前
I just stumbled on a note from the abandoned project [History.js](<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;browserstate&#x2F;history.js&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;browserstate&#x2F;history.js&#x2F;</a>):<p>&gt; Despite History.js being one of the most popular JavaScript libraries there is, and has been used by even multi-million-user companies in its time - the reality of economy and company practices seems to be that companies prefer to fork their own internal versions and fix locally with their own devs rather than fund open-source maintainers what they would pay their own devs to make things better for everyone, including themselves, which would be cheaper - but no, that would require too many tiers of company approval that don&#x27;t understand the need.<p>&gt; As such, if you are an open-source developer, I&#x27;d recommend just working on open-source projects that are paid for by your own consulting work or your own company (e.g. every successful open-source project). As otherwise, when they become popular, you better hope they are easily maintainable and testable, otherwise the cost of maintenance is higher than the free time of the maintainers.
pharrington超过 7 年前
&gt;&gt; Don&#x27;t give away your time.<p>&gt;&gt; But do give away your time <i>and money</i> to work on my projects.<p>Come on.
oelmekki超过 7 年前
I&#x27;ve considered opensourcing some business products and researched the various models for doing so. I found three main ones:<p>* pay for support, like ardour<p>* pay for additional features, like gitlab on-premise<p>* pay for hosting, like piwik, or gitlab.com<p>I&#x27;m not a big fan of paying for support, like mentioned in the article, because support is not just something you give to your users, it&#x27;s also useful for you: if someone spotted a big bug (possibly a security issue) but is not paying for support, don&#x27;t you want to know it? Asking to pay for support is also creating a lot of tension, because people will ask for help anyway, and you have to tell them they won&#x27;t receive it if they don&#x27;t pay.<p>Paying for features is an obvious and efficient way. But I also like the idea that someone in a country where what I consider a decent price is actually a big part of the income can still manage to use my product to its full extent, provided they make an effort to use it.<p>That&#x27;s why pay for hosting seems the best way to me for opensource products : everybody can use the product to the full extent, no issue is ignored, people pay for comfort.<p>Obviously, this works for the products I mentioned because they are ... products, and not libs. But I think it can apply to libs as well:<p>* pay for support : the idea mentioned in the article<p>* pay for features : this is something Sidekiq is doing, would love to know how it goes for them<p>* pay for hosting : this one is tricky, maybe offer to help implementing the lib in customer product? Hardly scalable, though<p>I would say that for libraries, paying for additional features is what makes the most of sense for me.
panic超过 7 年前
I think a crowdfunding site specifically designed for software projects would go a long way toward solving this problem. Something like this: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.daemonology.net&#x2F;blog&#x2F;2017-05-11-plan-for-foss-maintainers.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.daemonology.net&#x2F;blog&#x2F;2017-05-11-plan-for-foss-mai...</a>
gkya超过 7 年前
About any software stack for about any computer task involves at least some open source code running for you, written by someone on their free time, mostly out of pure altruism. I wonder how many dollars has this person contributed to, say OpenSSL, or to GnuPG, or to the GNU project, or to Linux, or to the Apache Foundation, &amp;c.<p>If you dont want to respond to pull requests or to emails, just ignore them or dont put your code up on a platform that allows these. Publish release tarballs. Nobody&#x27;s obliged to accept patches. But what this article tells is a merely a shortcut to making someone hard-fork your project. If I have to pay to get my patch upstream, well, I&#x27;ll just maintain my patchset against upstream instead, if there are no alternative projects.
Retr0spectrum超过 7 年前
Why does the text on this website have 52% transparency?
评论 #15214950 未加载
评论 #15217051 未加载
评论 #15215023 未加载
brooklynrob超过 7 年前
Glad to see other ideas and operating models being proposed and tried.<p>Most of us live in countries where you need money to pay rent and buy food. Unless you&#x27;re already wealthy, that means you need to work (trade time for money) or find a way to trade time for an ownership stake that will, you hope, generate income (and in the process that stake becomes itself more valuable).<p>A buddy of mine in a maintainer for a popular Drupal module. A very large, well known, social media platform uses it. One day he got an email from someone - likely someone making $150-$200k- more or less demanding that he review and accept some PRs, as well as do some work himself, for a feature they needed.<p>I told this friend &quot;Ok, did you ask them about their budget to pay you for that?&quot; My friend, more idealistic than me, looked at me like I had 3 heads at first. But he got my question. Nonetheless he decided to &quot;honor&quot; their request and proceeded to work several weeks unexpectedly - for free - so the large for-profit company could stick with its plan and the person requesting this, who is paid, could meet her&#x2F;his commitment to their boss. His rationale was afraid he&#x27;d criticized by the community for not dropping his paid work (!) to do this, since he was the maintainer. He did not want to be a &quot;sell out&quot;. I think his decision was insane but such is the pressure to stay true to the ideals.<p>These stories are all to common and similar to what Willian describes.<p>I do work around expanding computer science in schools. I do work around mobilizing tech communities to lend their tech skills to disaster relief. A lot of folks in the &quot;startup tech&quot; and open sources communities (different communities with overlap) do the same -- I&#x27;m seeing them show up in big numbers for Irma volunteering right now for example. I view these efforts as akin to open course - they are contributions people make of their (unpaid) time to the greater good.<p>The big tech companies by contrast, many who got their start using open source software and many of whom still power much of their systems with it, could do much much much more on any number of fronts - CS in schools, supporting civic hacking, etc - than they do now. I am sure folks within those companies think they do a lot, but it&#x27;s not, in my opinion, 5% of what they could do.<p>And when they do get involved in causes they make huge, often unreasonable expectations of unpaid volunteers in order to minimize their donation, whether that&#x27;s a donation in time or money. (Case in point: last year a large tech company that provides search and email services asked me to organize Hour of Code events at 30-40 schools around NYC at which their staff to volunteer for an hour or two -- planning and logistics work that would have taken me 1-2 days a week for 4-6 weeks at least. They balked at the idea of paying me for my time since this was a &quot;cause&quot; and I should do it for free, though of course the people who would have been working on this project with me from said company would have been paid.) Sound similar? Expect a ton from volunteers to minimize your own investment.<p>I bring this up because the LEAST that people who work on open source projects - at least those who aren&#x27;t pulling in $300K at one of the big tech companies - and ESPECIALLY maintainers, should expect is to get paid somehow. Seriously, how are people supposed to pay rent? William is right on with his piece.<p>Ideals are great but people need to eat. This emerging duopoly in tech where on one side there is a group of people who are entitled to make massive wealth and demand huge salaries and, on the other, are the open source maintainers, civic hackers, and computer science teachers who are being disloyal to the noble ideals of tech for not wanting to eat cat food is serves the industry poorly.<p>I engage in this hyperbole to make a point -- an industry that was built by many idealists who saw tech as being an engine to democratization and equality is now becoming exaggerated mirror of society large.<p>And if you&#x27;re one of those making $250k, $300k, $500k at some tech company and demanding people work for free or else you&#x27;ll accuse them of being sellouts for wanting to pay their rent -- well, look in the mirror before you cast that stone.
评论 #15215068 未加载
评论 #15214965 未加载
评论 #15215820 未加载
评论 #15215048 未加载
评论 #15215420 未加载
TCM超过 7 年前
The social contract of open source is to give away code and time to open source to enhance the community and software. The problem that open source projects really have is that raising and or selling a product is a goal that not every person with a successful project has.<p>If you want to actually have people pay for open source you should look into making a grant style system for people in open source that is targeted to maintainers. Google Summer of Code and Aigrant are good examples of this.
jamiesonbecker超过 7 年前
The author seems to believe <i>contributions</i> of code or <i>contributions</i> of bug reports are a net negative for the project, while the only thing that the project needs to survive is money to pay for the <i>author&#x27;s</i> time.<p>That is exactly backwards. Nearly all open source projects actually do <i>not</i> need any money at all to grow and prosper. They simply need contributions.. of time. In the form of bug reports and code.<p>Take care of your users, first, and the money will follow.
评论 #15214998 未加载
评论 #15215049 未加载
normalocity超过 7 年前
I hope the OP doesn&#x27;t seriously believe that charging for open source work will somehow &quot;fix the diversity problem&quot;, rather than magnify it.<p>I&#x27;m hoping that was just an off-handed line that didn&#x27;t get much thought before being added to the post.
justinjlynn超过 7 年前
&quot;Do you want to get forks? Because this is how you get forks.&quot;
madprops超过 7 年前
Maybe not lock non-paying users, but give paying users a bigger priority and the ability to promote non-paying user&#x27;s requests if they&#x27;re good.
ak39超过 7 年前
IMHO, the fundamental problem of these burnout open source projects is that they are &quot;marketed&quot; (deliberately or otherwise) to non-decision makers and people who don&#x27;t control the budgets in companies that need their software. I.e. The lowly developers of some complex hive of a deeply hierarchical group of code monkeys in a for-profit org that&#x27;s typically not in technology.<p>Red Hat, Google, Microsoft and Oracle all know the value of open source because their big wigs are keenly aware of its value.
gandutraveler超过 7 年前
Alt currency is an option for open source project. I think GitCoin is on these lines
arisAlexis超过 7 年前
Would be nice if projects were organized with the Aragon project
ApolloFortyNine超过 7 年前
&gt;If you’re the leader of one of these projects, charge an annual fee for community membership. Open source, closed community. The message to users should be “do whatever you want with the code, but pay us for our time if you want to influence the project’s future.” Lock non-paying users out of the forum and issue tracker, and ignore their emails. People who don’t pay should feel like they are missing out on the party.<p>This could be the dumbest thing I have ever heard of it. I mean seriously, you want people to pay even for PRs they have already written?<p>&gt;Also charge contributors for the time it takes to merge nontrivial pull requests. If a particular submission will not immediately benefit you, charge full price for your time. Be disciplined and remember YAGNI.<p>This sounds like a great way to lose all your real contributors. The article mentions &quot;get paid for your time&quot; over and over again, yet who is paying me for the time to write the code for the PR? You expect me to both dedicate my time to writing the code for a PR, and then pay you for the privilege.<p>Perhaps what projects worrying about work for commits should require rigorous testing (integration tests at the very least) on unknown PRs if they ever feel the need to do something like this. And limiting feature requests is understandable, but most projects already ignore overly specific feature requests. Charging for PRs though seems like the fastest way to have your project forked, and have you lose control of it, or for it to split the development talent and die completely.
评论 #15214930 未加载
评论 #15215061 未加载
评论 #15214997 未加载
评论 #15214969 未加载
评论 #15215210 未加载
评论 #15215070 未加载
outoftacos超过 7 年前
I&#x27;ve never really worked at a place where we had any spare time for open source project development, nor time to opine on the social issues of the day. Must be nice, but I feel like a very small, privileged few actually live in that world.<p>The rest of us have work to do.
评论 #15214808 未加载
评论 #15214781 未加载
评论 #15214797 未加载
评论 #15217484 未加载
评论 #15214746 未加载
评论 #15214755 未加载