> but for almost any economically important project all the major contributors and maintainers are on the payroll of one of the big tech interests or a foundation funded by them.

"almost" is the load bearing word here, and/or a weasel word. Define what an "economically important project" is.

> Also just to be clear: node is filled with povertyware and you should be extremely careful what you grab from npm.

Is "povertyware" what we call software written by people and released for free now?

▲

ajross 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> "almost" is the load bearing word here, and/or a weasel word. Define what an "economically important project" is.

Linux, clang, python, react, blink, v8, openssl... You know what I mean. I stand by what I said. Do you have a counterexample you think is clearly unfunded? They exist[1], but they're rare.

> Is "povertyware" what we call software written by people and released for free now?

It's software subject to economic coercion owing to the lack of means of its maintainership. It's 100% fine for you to write and release software for free, but if a third party bets their own product on it they're subject to an attack where I hand you $7M to look the other way while I borrow your shell.

[1] The xz-utils attack is the flag bearer for this kind of messup, obviously.

▲

cudder an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Unfunded is kind of a stretch, but at least libxml2.

Essentially "povertyware" as you call it when you consider the trillion dollar companies built on top of them? Now that's way easier: SQLite, PostgreSQL, ffmpeg, imagemagick, numpy, pandas, GTK, curl, zlib, libpng, zxing or any other popular qr/barcode library, etc...

▲

Foxboron an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

> Linux, clang, python, react, blink, v8, openssl... You know what I mean. I stand by what I said. Do you have a counterexample you think is clearly unfunded? They exist[1], but they're rare.

For Linux "all the major contributors and maintainers are on the payroll of one of the big tech interests or a foundation funded by them" is simply not true. It's trivial to prove this by just looking at the maintainers of the subsystems. Making this claim is nonsense to begin with.

Same is true for several major contributors to the Python compiler and subsequent libraries as well.

You will move the goalpost by trying to narrow down what "major contributor" means.

> It's software subject to economic coercion owing to the lack of means of its maintainership. It's 100% fine for you to write and release software for free, but if a third party bets their own product on it they're subject to an attack where I hand you $7M to look the other way while I borrow your shell.

So without knowing anyone you are making a value judgement on the (probable?) lack of ethics? Excuse me?

▲

ajross an hour ago | parent [-]

> You will move the goalpost

I can't move the goalpost if you won't produce a ball. Who exactly are you thinking of that needs a job but doesn't have one?

	▲	Foxboron 41 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> Who exactly are you thinking of that needs a job but doesn't have one? That is not your claim. Your claim is that they "are on the payroll of one of the big tech interests or a foundation funded by them". Which is simply not true. You can easily find several maintainers of these projects doing this as their part-time hobby project, have cut a deal at work or simply don't work at place that funds Linux development. I'm not going to call out individual I know the situation and/or their employment history.