←back to thread

1125 points CrankyBear | 6 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
Show context
phkahler ◴[] No.45891830[source]
From TFA this was telling:

Thus, as Mark Atwood, an open source policy expert, pointed out on Twitter, he had to keep telling Amazon to not do things that would mess up FFmpeg because, he had to keep explaining to his bosses that “They are not a vendor, there is no NDA, we have no leverage, your VP has refused to help fund them, and they could kill three major product lines tomorrow with an email. So, stop, and listen to me … ”

I agree with the headline here. If Google can pay someone to find bugs, they can pay someone to fix them. How many time have managers said "Don't come to me with problems, come with solutions"

replies(8): >>45891966 #>>45891973 #>>45893060 #>>45893320 #>>45896629 #>>45898338 #>>45902990 #>>45906281 #
skhameneh ◴[] No.45893320[source]
I've been a proponent of upstreaming fixes for open source software.

Why? - It makes continued downstream consumption easier, you don't have to rely on fragile secret patches. - It gives back to projects that helped you to begin with, it's a simple form of paying it forward. - It all around seems like the "ethical" and "correct" thing to do.

Unfortunately, in my experience, there's often a lot of barriers within companies to upstream. Reasons can be everything from compliance, processes, you name it... It's unfortunate.

I have a very distinct recollection of talks about hardware aspirations and upstreaming software fixes at a large company. The cultural response was jarring.

replies(10): >>45894455 #>>45894472 #>>45894483 #>>45894572 #>>45895043 #>>45896339 #>>45896674 #>>45897121 #>>45901635 #>>45902318 #
fao_ ◴[] No.45894483[source]
As yet, Valve is the only company I know of doing this, and it's paying off in dividends both for Linux and for Valve. In just 5ish years of Valve investing people and money into Linux- specifically mesa and WINE, Linux has gone from a product that is kind of shaky with Windows, to "I can throw a windows program or game at it and it usually works". Imagine how further the OSS ecosystem would be if Open Source hadn't existed, only FOSS; and companies were legally obligated to either publish source code or otherwise invest in the ecosystem.
replies(7): >>45895190 #>>45895524 #>>45895902 #>>45896743 #>>45897191 #>>45900101 #>>45900153 #
rossjudson ◴[] No.45895902[source]
I'm glad you threw in "I know of", because that part is true.

Feel free to read lore.kernel.org, and sort out where the people contributing many patches actually work.

replies(2): >>45896793 #>>45897022 #
1. Root_Denied ◴[] No.45897022[source]
I'd say as a counterpoint that just because someone works at, say, Meta or Oracle, and also contributes to OSS projects, that doesn't equate to the company they work at funding upstream projects (at least not by itself).

I don't even have to link the xkcd comic because everyone already knows which one goes here.

replies(3): >>45897115 #>>45897291 #>>45898229 #
2. MYEUHD ◴[] No.45897115[source]
Well, if they use their work email, doesn't that mean their kernel work is endorsed by their employer?
3. izacus ◴[] No.45897291[source]
People don't use their company email addresses for private work.
replies(2): >>45899252 #>>45902321 #
4. surajrmal ◴[] No.45898229[source]
Everyone I know who contributes to Linux upstream is paid to do it. It's not really worth the hassle to bother trying if you weren't getting paid. It's also very easy to find companies that will pay you to work on Linux and upstream.
5. seb1204 ◴[] No.45899252[source]
Linus does...
6. flymasterv ◴[] No.45902321[source]
At GOOG you’re required to, by policy.