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。

I am not a supplier (2022)

121 点作者 MaysonL大约 1 年前

10 条评论

susam大约 1 年前
About a decade or so ago, I found the way free and open source software was used in commercial projects seemed to better align with the warranty disclaimers of the open source licenses. For example, I remember in a C++ project I worked on back then, every single dependency was committed along with the project. Today this practice is known by the term &quot;vendoring&quot;. And, yes, there was no supplier.<p>To illustrate my point, let us consider the case of Net-SNMP which was one of the projects I had direct experience with back then. We had the entire source code of Net-SNMP checked into our own project repository. From that point on, it was our responsibility to understand&#x2F;maintain&#x2F;update&#x2F;upgrade&#x2F;patch&#x2F;customise the code (at least the parts that we relied on). When something didn&#x27;t work the way it was supposed to, it was one of the employer&#x27;s developers responsibility to figure out how to make it work. If needed, sometimes we would even engage with the community around the project in their IRC channels or mailing lists, to figure out how to solve our problems and sometimes such engagement might even end up benefitting both the community and us.<p>But at no point there was the notion of a supplier or &quot;they&quot; or &quot;them&quot;. It was always &quot;we&quot;. We decided to take this gift called Net-SNMP. We decided to use it develop our software. So it was now our responsibility to keep it in good shape. After all, the employer&#x27;s developers were getting paid for it.<p>Now I know in today&#x27;s world of software engineering, it is no longer possible to tend to every single dependency that is pulled into a project. There are thousands and thousands of them in every project. The way software engineering is done today is vastly different from how it was done a decade or two ago. There has been a Cambrian explosion of programming languages, open source software, frameworks, ecosystems, etc. It is impractical to assume the ownership of the thousands of dependencies that get pulled into every project and I think this is why the notion of &quot;they&quot; or the mythical &quot;supplier&quot; implicitly creeps in. While this rising complexity has resulted in increased speed and agility of software development, we have lost the simplicity and clear sense of ownership of code we rely on, which I believe was more prevalent a decade or so ago.
评论 #39951845 未加载
评论 #39951858 未加载
评论 #39951817 未加载
fmajid大约 1 年前
Let&#x27;s be very clear: when a commercial outfit uses open-source software, the &quot;supplier&quot; is the person who imported the project, not the original author.
dhx大约 1 年前
For fun, let&#x27;s assume you are a supplier, whatever that means. Let&#x27;s say you are Autodesk, and you&#x27;ve been told you need to create a SBOM for AutoCAD in CycloneDX. You have to complete &quot;manufacturer&quot;, &quot;supplier&quot;, &quot;publisher&quot; and &quot;author&quot; fields, which the standard makes no attempt to disambiguate for you. Which corporate entities do you list against each field? ADSK IRELAND LIMITED (IE), ADSK NORWAY AS (NO), ADSK NORWAY HOLDINGS AS (NO), AUTODESK AB (NO), AUTODESK AMERICAS LLC (US), AUTODESK ASIA PTE LTD (SG), AUTODESK ASIA PTE LTD (MY), etc (there are pages of options) Do you need to list the specialty consulting firm that was engaged by a small subsidiary office in whatever country for 20 weeks to implement a file import function for a third party file format? If yes, which part of their Double Irish with a Dutch Sandwich corporate structure do you list?<p>Also for fun, let&#x27;s assume you&#x27;re an American company that buys copyright ownership and complete rights of proprietary software originally developed by an Irish company. You immediately re-release the software with a new loading screen logo, &quot;About&quot; dialog, etc changed to your brand name, and a new SBOM is released. Which part of your Double Irish with a Dutch Sandwich corporate structure do you list as &quot;manufacturer&quot;, &quot;supplier&quot;, &quot;publisher&quot; and &quot;author&quot; fields? Which part of the Irish company (or whatever complex corporate structure may exist) do you list in any of these fields, if any get listed at all? If you did list the Irish company, after 5 years when most code has been rewritten but only a few small bits and pieces remain, does this change whether you mention the Irish company that worked on the software 5 years ago?
pards大约 1 年前
&gt; You are not buying from a supplier, you are a raccoon digging through dumpsters for free code.<p>That implies that the FOSS code is garbage which we all know it is not.<p>&gt; I am more than happy to become a supplier[...] which means you are going to have to start to pay me.<p>I&#x27;d love to see large enterprises contribute _something_ to FOSS. In many cases, they forbid their staff from contributing code and they certainly don&#x27;t contribute in any way financially.<p>It&#x27;s astounding, really, that much of our financial system relies on FOSS libraries like OpenSSL, Spring, and Apache and yet they do little to ensure its ongoing health.
评论 #39951848 未加载
评论 #39955376 未加载
评论 #39951864 未加载
评论 #39951929 未加载
lifeisstillgood大约 1 年前
Vendoring is the right <i>attitude</i> even if it is not the solution. Each company should know exactly its dependancies (ie S-BOM), and if there is a problem, they should look to produce their own patch and release that.<p>Now this second part is … a little naive, but it’s quite feasible for that to become a middle ground industry. The big distributions are fine but as a thought experiment imagine a group of ISVs focused on say python web services. They can provide an immutable nix-like definition of a simplified stack, keep a treadmill of updates and security patches, probably as binaries.<p>I think there is unlikely to be a way such “focused distros” will ever give up warranties so perhaps we are not making progress.<p>However until we live in a global socialist utopia, we need to find some way of making the “raccoon in the dumpster” get paid.
评论 #39952007 未加载
BlarfMcFlarf大约 1 年前
People get upset that someone “broke” their dependency. But with FOSS, that’s impossible, since you still have the code you relied on, right? What they did is release a new piece of code, called a new “version”, and you made some bad assumptions that are not just founded in any contract, but are actively rejected by the contract (“software is provided as is” clause).
CRConrad大约 1 年前
2024 (kind of) follow-up:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.softwaremaxims.com&#x2F;blog&#x2F;open-source-hobbyists-turf" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.softwaremaxims.com&#x2F;blog&#x2F;open-source-hobbyists-tu...</a><p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=39910558">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=39910558</a>
michalc大约 1 年前
&gt; If you use this, I owe you nothing.<p>Sure the legalese states I owe nothing, but if I’ve shared the code, written some documentation, and encouraged others to use it as I have on a few projects…<p>… I feel as though I do owe something. I feel like I’ve made a sort of social contract to provide a bit of support on what I’ve, er, “supplied”.<p>Not really sure why.
评论 #39952451 未加载
评论 #39952433 未加载
评论 #39960212 未加载
评论 #39954412 未加载
layer8大约 1 年前
(2022)
renewiltord大约 1 年前
Okay, we&#x27;re going to call it Provenance Chain. There. Solved.