Or don't. I've done both, published OSS projects and sold some software. The level of entitlement in some comments I received on the OSS side was pretty crazy at times. While with the paid software, all of the interactions I had were so much more constructive. YMMV, but willingness to pay is a great filter.

▲ latexr 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I’ve also done both, and I found both kinds of users in both situations. There have been cases on the commercial front where I just felt like giving customers their money back, even after years of having used the software, and told them to not come back. There’s a lot of entitlement and craziness from paying users too, and those are harder to ignore. With open-source it’s much simpler to drive a hard line.

My “favourites” are the ones threatening to abandon the tool, despite having never made a single positive contribution. On open-source that’s an easy laugh and a “good riddance”. On commercial cases it’s more frustrating and nuanced.

I disagree willingness to pay is that meaningful of a filter, in the cases I experienced. And it’s getting worse; many people are getting too impatient and act like everyone works for them specifically and only their needs matter.

▲

DANmode 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> it’s much simpler to drive a hard line.

But driving that line is a cost: to you, your volunteers, or your tokens(?).

▲

latexr 2 hours ago | parent [-]

There’s no cost to me to stop an entitled disruptive user with zero positive contributions from destabilising the project. No cost to my volunteers either. The opposite is true in both cases; removing that user is a net benefit and I’ve done so in the past specifically to protect the experience of the volunteers.

As for tokens, there have been exactly zero cases where someone has submitted LLM code to one of my repos that has been up to my standards and I have accepted it. Yes, I can say that with certainty. If I wanted LLM code I’d ask for it myself, having an intermediary in that process is worse than useless.

	▲	DANmode 13 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> There’s no cost to me to stop an entitled disruptive user with zero positive contributions from destabilising the project. Having to spend time reviewing a PR or issue is “no cost”? I’m not convinced yet. > As for tokens I did not mean LLM contributions…I meant using AI tools to automate the reviews of contributions and users you seem to think cost no time or attention, but I do..

▲ Lerc 30 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

My experience is similar, but I remain more motivated to give away what I make than to ask people to pay for it.

▲ faangguyindia an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

As someone who once had a popular open-source project. Opensource is just harder because you've to write code for <optics>. When I am working with a small team, I do not care if my commits are ugly or repetitive. Despite what people here say, all these things have very little to do with the reliability of actual code.

Same software i offer for free will take 2-5x more time if i did it opensource way.

	▲	andrekandre 22 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		`> When I am working with a small team, I do not care if my commits are ugly or repetitive.` thats interesting because for me its the opposite: working in a team boosted my code quality and cleanliness much more than something open source i did precisely because people on my team would be looking at it and reviewing it...