Yeah, exactly. Which is a completely different beast when the open source project is made by 3 dudes in a basement. So either you get support from a huge foundation like Apache, spend your own money for little gain, or your project is shitty quality-wise
The only way you can start expecting quality is if you start paying for it. Otherwise you are just judging people for how badly they built their hobby project in their free time.
It might currently be complicated to do that but that just means we need infrastructure. Start complaining about that or do something about it if you want more quality open source software.
It’s not even the “quality of the project” like suggested in this thread. It’s the quality of the commit messages (meta-data, documentation)
That’s like someone who paints for a hobby, and shows their paints off on the internet, and people would post stuff like “Well cool painting, but you didn’t really explain what kind of paint you’ve used, who your inspirations were” etc etc
When I’m building Open Source stuff as a hobby for things that are useful to me, and also dump them on Github - because it’s a good backup system - I don’t really care whether people might go through the commit history as means to figure out how I’ve build it
I’d say that good documentation is also a part of quality of a software project, more so than in other fields, but I do agree that it is one of the things you can just forget about for personal projects.
market capitalism will prioritize putting most resources into spyware and adware that turns the consumer into a product. Along with that constant reinventing of the wheel in proprietary software in the name of “competition”, even though index/hedging funds oligopoly leads us into stagnation in terms of innovation these days with one ‘next great thing’ after another turning out to be mostly an overspeculated fad. I’d say vote for pirate parties but that’s actually BS as is all parliamentary politics in this quasi-aristocratic system, even if they launch large scale grant programmes they’ll very likely back down on them whenever an economic slump happens.
Yeah, exactly. Which is a completely different beast when the open source project is made by 3 dudes in a basement. So either you get support from a huge foundation like Apache, spend your own money for little gain, or your project is shitty quality-wise
The only way you can start expecting quality is if you start paying for it. Otherwise you are just judging people for how badly they built their hobby project in their free time.
It might currently be complicated to do that but that just means we need infrastructure. Start complaining about that or do something about it if you want more quality open source software.
It’s not even the “quality of the project” like suggested in this thread. It’s the quality of the commit messages (meta-data, documentation)
That’s like someone who paints for a hobby, and shows their paints off on the internet, and people would post stuff like “Well cool painting, but you didn’t really explain what kind of paint you’ve used, who your inspirations were” etc etc
When I’m building Open Source stuff as a hobby for things that are useful to me, and also dump them on Github - because it’s a good backup system - I don’t really care whether people might go through the commit history as means to figure out how I’ve build it
I’d say that good documentation is also a part of quality of a software project, more so than in other fields, but I do agree that it is one of the things you can just forget about for personal projects.
market capitalism will prioritize putting most resources into spyware and adware that turns the consumer into a product. Along with that constant reinventing of the wheel in proprietary software in the name of “competition”, even though index/hedging funds oligopoly leads us into stagnation in terms of innovation these days with one ‘next great thing’ after another turning out to be mostly an overspeculated fad. I’d say vote for pirate parties but that’s actually BS as is all parliamentary politics in this quasi-aristocratic system, even if they launch large scale grant programmes they’ll very likely back down on them whenever an economic slump happens.