For example, the developer of asus-linux.org who made the kernel contributions for Asus ROG laptops and the accompanying ROG Control Center recently walked away, due to exhaustion.
I couldn’t find anything about this on the Asus Linux blog, am I just dumb and looking in the wrong place? I use Asus-linux and didn’t know about this :(
Edit:
unfortunately it seems that bullshitters who make shit up on the spot have made their way over to Lemmyboo meFor myself, I make sure I’ve done my due diligence before I might accuse someone of dishonesty, rather than making a minimum effort.
From his Kofi: https://ko-fi.com/flukejones
I’ve burned out on LKML and many many other parts of the FOSS world. It’s exhausting. As such, I will not be working on Linux for asus device. It’s not something I can devote huge chunks of time to for free anymore.
Thank you everyone who has donated something over the last years.
Same on his Patreon
Anus Linux, you say?
If only there was a way to fund open source projects so we both could have better software for the world and paid employees…
I think you can guess which government body already do this. Just take a shot.
Pay for your FOSS! I’ve paid far more for my FOSS than for any proprietary software.
If you believe in subscriptions, then subscribe only to FOSS software like Bitwarden, Tailscale/Netbird, etc.
Find your favorite FOSS projects on Open Collective and support them there.
And above all else, treat FOSS devs and maintainers with the utmost respect! They are the unsung heros who are building the only alternatives to the corpo-dystopian hellscape of proprietary, enshitified, slop software.
Send a message to a dev today, just saying thank you to them for everything, and asking if you can send them a tip if possible.
Folks, let’s treat each other lovingly please, FOSS has freed us, give back what you can, and never take it for granted.
To all the devs, maintainers, tinkerers, supporters, FOSS educators, and helpful community members across the FOSS world, thank you so much, and much love. ♥️
I like Projects that provide an IBAN. I don’t want to pay 3% to paypal or stripe just to donate to a FOSS project.
I have so many causes on my mind that all need money; some for helping starving children, others for supporting sane politics, GoFundMes for people affected by a warped healthcare system; the request you’re making very much makes sense, but it’s so hard to put it above so many of the other critical needs for donations, when the image of an open source worker is someone who can, and often does, get paid working for a large company.
But the part about a nice email still applies. I’m not in it for the money, no positive feedback can be discouraging - typically I deal with issues where someone has a problem.
So are closed source developers.
But at least they’re paid
Open source should be funded by the tax-payers, or all code should be forcibly open-source (something like AGPL)
Any other models feels like they would create perverse incentives
Also recurring donations feels like a better way than one-time tips
By which country?
All of them? Maybe an international consortium that pays devs in their home currency.
Each of them.
I’m sure many people could point to hundreds of dangers around open-source programs relying on government funding. Yet, I can’t argue that it seems to be a necessity.
I mean, look what happened with TCP/IP.
A fucking disaster for humanity on a global scale
???
So what’s the problem with those protocols?
How do you decide which open source projects are worthy of taxpayer money, and how much does a given project get?
I have a couple projects I’ve put up in GitHub as open source. Would they qualify? Or are you just talking about well known open source projects like Linux?
Same as all other tax funded projects, by some elected people who likely have no idea about the project.
Joking aside, we will see more of this funding due to governments moving to open source software as they tend to want to fund their own stuff.
I’m going to be honest, I have no idea how open source works. I can’t imagine maintaining anything more than a tiny library that I can ignore six days of the week.
Also: open source relies on good jobs. You can only do it if you have a well paid low stress job with good hours. Those have been in short supply recently.
I think the free time covid gave, followed by the free time the layoffs gave, and AI have been patching / hiding the fact that the core model of open source is completely unsustainable in its current state.
I have a job like that, but I also have kids, so…
The part that confuses me is: How can multiple people work on overlapping bits of code at the same time, and the Git manager (or whatever you call it) just handles it all without breaking everything?
Roughly equal parts “git is clever” and “once in a while, someone has to take some time to figure it out”.
Say the code is split into two files. You and I both make changes, but you’re working on file A and I’m in file B. No problem!
Now we both make changes in file A. Sometimes Git can just “figure it out”, like if all your changes are in the beginning of the file, and all my changes are at the end.
But sometimes we both change the same section. Git can’t figure that part out, so one of us has to sit down and reconcile the changes. Sometimes this is pretty simple, other times…not so much.
Put it all together, and it works out pretty well most of the time.
Okay, so the answer basically is that you can’t have multiple people working on overlapping bits of code, not without someone sorting it out first.
Being able to have two different people work on different parts of the same file without causing any issues makes sense, but I also thought there was some magic formula that fixes everything if two people try to upload the file with the same part of the code modified in two different ways at the same time.
Git is not as magical as I thought it was now that you’ve explained it.
Yeah, it’s fairly clever but not actually magical. Sometimes you have to go in and take a look.
Actually, the real magic is that it works out mostly ok most of the time. Much better than older systems where you would have to “check out” a file to work on it which would lock others out. I’ve heard older programmers talk about needing to go find someone who had a file checked out and have them check it back in to enable them to do some work.
It’s funny how common this mindset is in the self-hosting community: “If I’m running it on my own hardware, the software should basically be free… maybe I’ll toss a tiny ‘tip’ if I feel generous.”
The logic seems to be that since there’s no ongoing server cost, the developer’s time, skill, and effort must somehow be worth nothing and that we should magically fund the entire project through some hypothetical cloud version that they themselves will never use.
It’s like showing up to a brewery with your own growler and expecting the beer to be free because you didn’t use their glass.
I’m sorry, but I can’t agree with this. If the software is free, then it’s free. It’s up to the authors how they want to license it.
Personally, I write code and publish it in the hopes that it will help someone. If someone comes in and says “there’s this bug, fix it!” I will only do so if it will benefit me, or if I feel like it.
The article and discussion here is about open source software which is not free software. Thats where the problem lies it is assumed that open source software has be free.
Freedom in software does not mean free software.
Thats where the problem lies it is assumed that open source software has be free.
But the article is not talking about this scenario. They’re specifically talking about open source software that’s also free software:
Your favorite apps run on code maintained by exhausted volunteers.
So it’s perfectly fine for some users to expect the software to be free.
The real problem is that some project owners have a sense of duty to maintain their creations no matter what, leading to burnout, which is the point of the article. The article also details ways to fix it. Some of those involve the users being proactive (e.g. taking the initiative to donate consistently), but ultimately it’s up to the owner to take some action. Like I mentioned, if I publish some code for free, I don’t mind my users to expect that my software will always be free. But if they think I’m going to lose sleep trying to meet their demands without compensation, welp, they are dreaming.
It’s up to the authors how they want to license it.
Plus or minus some amount of piracy, sure
Oh for sure!
To be fair - this mindset is hardly exclusive to self-hosters. The dotcom era itself kicked off because it was easier to get advertisers to pay for server costs than users.
Careful bro you’re making it sound like exploitation has been normalized in the name of ‘free software’, but actually… Oh wait.
I read this blog post yesterday and it was insightful.
Seems like we could solve multiple problems in one go here…
I liked the article. It sung to my heart. I’ve been in this world for a while. Lived through the failure and hyperacalars just taking without giving back.
I don’t know what to think. But I’m not happy with where we are and it’s nice to hear someone else talking about it.
I’m all for ethical licensing, and defensive licensing, but we’ll likely end up with an unmanageable soup of various licenses that everyone is nervous about misinterpreting. We lose efficacy and everyone will just default back to the same handful of licenses we’re currently using.
I think unless it was a small number of crystal clear alternative licenses with broadly agreeable terms, we’d get chaos, followed by complacency.
More likely, people’s work will get thrown into the bin because its poorly licensed.
Well that’s kind of what I’m getting at. How many times does that happen before everybody just goes back to using GPL, MIT, etc…
Fuuuuck that!
A lot of FOSS projects are freemium based which seems viable for larger more complex projects.
In these projects it’s common to see the developer get paid for adding features on top of the core version, for a SaaS version, for custom development, or for offering support.
Other projects with a lot of community interest - and a good “community manager” style organizer can attract contributors in the form of pulls, bug testing and reports, and widespread use which generates valuable marketing. These projects only exist because of the labor of love from the whole community.
Same deal with lawyers that go into public interest. It pays super low, compared to corporate and similar that has money to throw at their employees.
I’ve been using CachyOS and impressed by the array of available software, and it was only in the back of my mind, the thought; “Wow, so much of this is so refined and polished. I wonder who has motive to maintain it?”
Joke’s on me, the motive is hardly there - and it’s a shitty time for it with Windows announcing that 10 is the last version and that there are no plans for a new one.
I’m glad Valve has a profit motive towards open source right now, but especially in a world where fewer people can donate at random, I really hoped that the model wasn’t specifically built to rely just on tip jars.
I don’t understand much about the finances of the FOSS world, but do companies like FUTO help at all? I don’t even know how FUTO makes money, to be honest.
They’re not a company, FUTO is one rich guy.
FUTO is both a company (LLC, to be specific) and a rich guy.
And not to forget: FUTO is evil.
That was my intuition after looking around their site
I know how futa makes money
What is to be expected when the current trend among CEOs is to get the same stuff done with less employees and same salaries hence resulting in either you getting fired, resigning or doing x2 the amount of work with no real life improvements. Who would have the willingness to continue their side hobbies/project like contributions to open source when your main life is in shambles.
All of the large scale projects are funded and maintained by enterprises
A lot of larger foss projects do open up a foundation or another legal entity. Mostly due to regulations or dealing with donations. But it’s hard to call them enterprises
Should there be OSS?
No. They should change it to CIA.
