Open-source is also altruistic. If DeepSeek does become self-serving once they get the top spot, it doesn’t take away from the altruistic contributions that they made towards open models.
Contributing to it might not necessarily be. Most open source development is funded by large companies after all and from their perspective it can function as a cost saving measure. Allowing them to focus on their core products and removing the possibility of their rivals from getting a competitive advantage due to having a superior low level stack under their product.
Which is why open source is so successful in areas where software is a cost-center but mostly failed for consumer products (since spending resources on them would actually be altruistic unlike e.g. Linux kernel development)
And ultimately the motivation for those contributions just doesn’t matter, except to those who like to anthropomorphize company and argue about their souls.
No parent is right. The core root driver of the world is capitalism, open source exists downstream of that.
Software engineers need money to survive. If they exclusively work on open source stuff where are they getting money from to survive? Follow the money trail… even a donation… eventually it leads to an incentive based source or action.
You’re right. One of its big uses is for big companies to destroy the ability of individual developers or small companies to make a living selling software. It’s also used to harm larger competitors whose revenue depends on some non open source software. Essentially, open source is the new “dumping”.
That’s not to say open source is bad. But in a capitalist context, it’s certainly a very double-edged sword.
Are you not implying below, with your words, that working exclusively on open source cannot bring money?
> If they exclusively work on open source stuff where are they getting money from to survive?
You seem to imply that open source is incompatible with making money. You seem to believe that if someone is making money they are not doing "exclusively open source" but something else in addition to open source.
> you need to follow the money trail. Money given to people who work on open source comes from non-open source places.
Money spent on coffee comes from non-coffee places, mostly. Does that mean one cannot make money exclusively selling coffee?
I get your point, it is very uncommon to live only of open source. That I can agree with. It is the exaggeration and dogmatism that is untrue.
> Are you not implying below, with your words, that working exclusively on open source cannot bring money?
No I am implying that it in itself does not generate money because it is given away freely. Open source can draw donations but that is not part of a transaction and the source of that money is from incentivized labor.
> You seem to imply that open source is incompatible with making money. You seem to believe that if someone is making money they are not doing "exclusively open source" but something else in addition to open source.
Usually yes but not necessarily. They may exclusively do open source but then in this case they must be supported by some kind of monetary source. That monetary source will be a for profit incentive. For example: donations. Donation money must be generated by for profit ventures. Or salary money paid by companies for employees to work on open source. That salary money is generated from for profit ventures.
> Money spent on coffee comes from non-coffee places, mostly. Does that mean one cannot make money exclusively selling coffee?
Dude. You’re missing the point and making a wrong analogy. It is not about where the money comes from but whether a transaction occurred. When you sell coffee you make a transaction. When you give away software… no transaction occurs. You lose time effort and money for nothing in return. Thus the effort must logically be supported by something else. I am exclusively talking about a logistical issue with a logistical consequence. That’s it.
> That I can agree with. It is the exaggeration and dogmatism that is untrue.
Where did I exaggerate or dogmatize anything? I am talking about a logistical reality and you’re getting emotionally worked up over it. Don’t fucking accuse me of shit I didn’t do.
The problem is you define open source as giving away software, and any money making aspect as "not open source". That is the exaggeration.
If one releases some software as open source and charges for support they are living of open source (my pov), not doing some open source + something else on the side (your pov). I disagree with your definition of open source.
Imagine I create my own illustrations and make them available for free (with some conditions GPL, or even almost without conditions MIT) and print tshirts with the illustrations, and sell them for money. Would it be fair to say I live of being an illustrator? or would you argue I am not living of my illustrations, that I am merely giving them away and really selling tshirts is the business?
> If they exclusively work on open source stuff where are they getting money from to survive?
These are orthogonal. One can have a paid job while contributing to open source for entirely altruistic reasons.
> Follow the money trail… even a donation… eventually it leads to an incentive based source or action.
BS. Humans do things for altruistic reasons devoid of individual reward all the time.
I, myself, maintain multiple OSS projects entirely for fun and with the hope that others will find it useful. That's it, that's all. I also donate entirely anonymously to charities simply because I believe others deserve support and dignity.
This form of cold, American libertarianism you espouse is pure poison in the body politic, both in this US and globally. It degrades all of human interaction to transactions. Its no wonder that the US is where sociopaths like Zuck were birthed.
> This form of cold, American libertarianism you espouse is pure poison in the body politic, both in this US and globally. It degrades all of human interaction to transactions. Its no wonder that the US is where sociopaths like Zuck were birthed.
Was an outright attack. But whatever, all water under the bridge, stuff like this happens. I might attack someone too if I misinterpreted something. Not a big deal.
> That I misunderstood your point in context is a different issue, in which case, yup, my mistake.
Thank you for taking the extra time to understand.
>Talking like this is not only against the rules here but it is some of the most vile and direct insults I’ve ever fucking read. And it doesn’t even stem from us disagreeing. It stems from you misunderstanding what was said. Why don’t you read over what I wrote and my explanation before making such a stupid comment. Let me be clear. You’re not stupid, but your reply is stupid. And your reply is stupid because of a misunderstanding. So make yourself understand and clean up your act because shit like this dies worse damage for the world than psychopaths. More wars are started over misunderstanding and uncalibrated anger than actual psychopathic tendencies.
I suggest you practice a much greater degree of self awareness.
I am self aware. I’m fully aware of the potential feelings that what I said could evoke but reality is reality and a forum is one of the few places we can still talk about reality without cancel culture or feelings muddling everything up.
I’d rather speak the truth and what I believe in rather than cater to the feelings of people who cannot face objective reality.
And I didn’t openly or directly insult anyone. I criticize where it’s deserved and where it is true. He personally attacked me and I criticized his attack as appropriately as I could.
If you disagree with my premise, attack my argument. Don’t make it personal by telling me to be self aware and replying to a section of my comment not meant for you.
Responding to the operatingthetan sibling reply because for some reason it’s dead (he just deleted it):
> Your comment is highly uncivil because it relies on aggressive profanity, condescending directives, and absurdist hyperbole to attack the other person. It lacks self-awareness because you hypocritically engage in the exact same hostile, rule-breaking behavior you are condemning.
From my interpretation here he attacked me. A defensive response is appropriate, but one where I do not attack his character directly but one where his unjust actions are criticized honestly. Unfortunately criticism is always somewhat condescending and for people to even be receptive of it you need to match the tone.
1. Profanity helps illustrate my point and I never directed at him.
2. I disagree with hyperbole. I think you’re outright lying to me here. So this is on you. You’re exaggerating things. He literally associated me with psychopaths and I called what he did a “misunderstanding”. So really you need to be more self aware, not me.
3. I never commented on my own rule breaking behavior and my stance on the rules of HN. I just commented ON his rule breaking behavior just as you are commenting on my behavior while ignoring your own.
I think this is enough. I’m not perfect with the rules here but this is becoming a bit of flame war and I’m fucking done. I’m ejecting myself from this thread.
