Most active commenters
  • ChrisMarshallNY(3)
  • renewiltord(3)

←back to thread

Open Source is one person

(opensourcesecurity.io)
433 points LawnGnome | 12 comments | 28 Aug 25 01:54 UTC | HN request time: 1.304s | source | bottom
Show context
ChrisMarshallNY ◴[28 Aug 25 10:56 UTC] No.45050663[source]▶
I've heard good things about work done by this guy Linus. I'm pretty sure that I've used his work.

I think he comes from a country that borders Russia, so should we be worried?

I've done OSS for decades; mostly by myself, but sometimes, in teams of volunteers.

If anyone has any experience, working in teams of volunteers, it can be ... challenging.

It can definitely work, but not as often as you'd think. If it works, there's usually some "BDFL," or a common goal that has everyone on the same beam. In my case, it was usually the latter.

replies(4): >>45051512 #>>45052081 #>>45052326 #>>45073461 #
tarvaina ◴[28 Aug 25 12:46 UTC] No.45051512[source]▶
(Off topic.)

Not only that, but Linus's parents were politically active communists and young Linus was a pioneer (like a boy scout but for communists). His father also lived in Moscow for several years on two separate occasions.

replies(2): >>45051629 #>>45051631 #
ChrisMarshallNY ◴[28 Aug 25 12:59 UTC] No.45051631[source]▶
I don't think Russia (or China, either) has been truly communist, in a long time.

Not sure there are any real communist nations left. It's one of those ideologies that looks good on paper, but falls apart, as soon as humans get added to the soup.

Idealists never seem to account for base human nature.

replies(6): >>45051916 #>>45052653 #>>45052718 #>>45054932 #>>45057991 #>>45061493 #
1. skeeter2020 ◴[28 Aug 25 14:36 UTC] No.45052718[source]▶
>> It's one of those ideologies that looks good on paper, but falls apart, as soon as humans get added...

Name an ideology where this doesn't happen.

replies(2): >>45052988 #>>45054772 #
2. ChrisMarshallNY ◴[28 Aug 25 14:55 UTC] No.45052988[source]▶
True, dat…
3. renewiltord ◴[28 Aug 25 17:29 UTC] No.45054772[source]▶
Constitutional democracies with a free market have had a long run so far. We shall see if they last.
replies(2): >>45054976 #>>45055257 #
4. seangrogg ◴[28 Aug 25 17:51 UTC] No.45054976[source]▶
Curious how we're defining "democracy" and "free market" with this one. I wonder how countries with a pure democracy and an actually free market compare to the republic and regulated market we have in the US.
replies(2): >>45054984 #>>45055128 #
5. krapp ◴[28 Aug 25 17:52 UTC] No.45054984{3}[source]▶
>I wonder how countries with a pure democracy and an actually free market compare to the republic and regulated market we have in the US.

They don't exist.

6. renewiltord ◴[28 Aug 25 18:05 UTC] No.45055128{3}[source]▶
The US is a constitutional democracy with a free market and I consider it successful.

The definitions of these words can be the predominant use of these words in the English language. But if you want "constitutional democracy" here use this: https://civiced.org/lesson-plans/constitutional-democracy

And for free market here, use this: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/freemarket.asp

People frequently misunderstand "constitutional democracy" as being substantially different from "republic" but that's usually an ESL error that can be fixed quickly.

replies(3): >>45055286 #>>45056218 #>>45056589 #
7. idiotsecant ◴[28 Aug 25 18:17 UTC] No.45055257[source]▶
Yeah, someone should make one of those. Would be interesting to see how they compare to the current 'free market' 'democracies'.
replies(1): >>45058027 #
8. idiotsecant ◴[28 Aug 25 18:20 UTC] No.45055286{4}[source]▶
The vast majority of markets in the US are hardly free. Every single large company in the US is heavily government subsidized, market protectionism is rife, and regulatory capture and artificial moat-building is the norm. I think it's quite a stretch to day we have a free market. Maybe a 'free-er' market.
replies(1): >>45055766 #
9. renewiltord ◴[28 Aug 25 19:03 UTC] No.45055766{5}[source]▶
So be it. s/free/free-er/g in comments above if that will lead to convergence.
10. seangrogg ◴[28 Aug 25 19:42 UTC] No.45056218{4}[source]▶
> The free market is an economic system based on supply and demand with little or no government control.

Given the amount of government subsidy and regulation that exists in our markets I assume this, too, is a simply ESL error that can be fixed quickly?

11. latexr ◴[28 Aug 25 20:18 UTC] No.45056589{4}[source]▶
> The US is a constitutional democracy with a free market and I consider it successful.

Out of all the definitions you gave, I feel you left out the most important. How exactly are you defining “successful”? Considering the current state of the US, that one seems really important.

12. tracker1 ◴[28 Aug 25 23:04 UTC] No.45058027{3}[source]▶
It'll wind up mired into something close to what we have now before long. "There atta be a law" and "Think of the children"... That said, I'm fairly pragmatic about it... I don't think you can have free markets with nations that heavily manipulate their markets, or significantly different quality of life goals or regulation.

That said, I much prefer the free-er market systems and a constitutional republic over what the Quasi-Mauists seem to be pushing for.