| ▲ | cpcallen 6 hours ago |
| On the one hand, if you grew up in the baazzar, moving to the cathedral might feel like the "death of open source" even if it is really just a return to an earlier way of working. On the other hand, while not accepting external code contributions will certainly improve their security posture it will also make it more difficult to identify who to invite to join the priesthood. |
|
| ▲ | Sharlin 44 minutes ago | parent | next [-] |
| I’m never getting accustomed to the fact that there’s now an entire generation of coders who have never seen a world where "everything" is open-source and developed in the bazaar style (are people these days even aware of the metaphor or Raymond’s book?), a world in which the frigging Microsoft is a major OSS vendor and in charge of facilitating most of the open-source programming on the planet. Try explaining that to a time traveler from the late 90. (Also, as a sibling comment implied, the archetypal "bazaars", like the Linux kernel project, now appear quite cathedral-like in conparison to the free-for-all GitHub model!) |
| |
| ▲ | dcrazy 13 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I’m confused, when has “everything” been a bazaar, and when did that cease to be? | | |
| ▲ | throawayonthe 2 minutes ago | parent [-] | | of course not literally 'everything', but as someone that grew up in a post-git world, with github as the 'default', to me projects that don't accept (or expect!) outside contributions have been the exception; definitely aware of notable examples (sqlite? some web servers, a few internal-libraries-that-outsiders-use?) but very much used to the bazaar i think the claim is that more projects are locking up contribution paths ~currently |
|
|
|
| ▲ | Yokohiii 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Open source development has become more and more superficial aligning with modern social network characteristics. It's more important to have an contribution, a active commit history, a few stars as a proof of pixel fame than the intrinsic value of the contributions or projects. Before the rise of github, open source projects were heavily walled gardens. Little clubs that gave you a stare when you entered the room. Github commoditized getting in touch and lowered the barrier for how much effort you have to put in or even how much you have to care before you contribute. This is gone now and you have to build trust now before you can contribute to anything. This isn't the death of open source. It's the death of the global village were everybody can freely roam and it's easy to interact. It's the resurrection of small, social, trusted communities. I hope this spreads to all of the internet. |
| |
| ▲ | appreciatorBus an hour ago | parent [-] | | Yes. Open source existed and thrived before GitHub, before git, and before anyone had ever used the words “pull request“. It was different, to be sure, but it was not worse. We are living through a transition, but people do that all the time and we adjust our behaviour and we find new equilibriums. We will do that with open source too, and if it ends up looking more like open source in the 80s or 90s, it’s gonna be fine. Maybe some people who got really good at gaming their Github reputation are going to lose out, but that was never the point. Anyone who likes this kind of work and wants to get involved will find a way. |
|
|
| ▲ | javawizard 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > it will also make it more difficult to identify who to invite to join the priesthood The point that this announcement is trying to make is, of course, that AI has already made that particular signal approximately worthless for that purpose. |
|
| ▲ | CodeCompost 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > it more difficult to identify who to invite to join the priesthood. How about this. Somebody forks the project and submits their patches to the fork . If the fork is successful (there are users actively using it), upstream can selectively go fish for the patches themselves. The maintainer of the fork eventually gets recognized. Not ideal, I know, but building a reputation is meant to take time. |
|
| ▲ | smartmic 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| There are great Open Source projects doing fine with the cathedral style, just look at Sqlite and its siblings (Fossil, …). So I do not see a problem with Ladybirds decision, in contrary, IMHO it strengthens the human aspect of software development and puts the brakes on AI free riders |
| |
| ▲ | gbalduzzi 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | I still don't see solutions on how a normal person can become a mantainer though. If all relevant open source projects close up their contributions, you can't enter the project anymore from an external point of view. Almost all open-source public figures started by being interested in a project and submitting PR to it, until eventually either joining the project as core mantainer or creating a separate open source project. The path is now closed, and I don't see a way in, outside of creating a popular open source yourself | | |
| ▲ | appreciatorBus an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | > how a normal person can become a maintainer though. Is the goal to produce high-quality software, or is the goal to produce an apprenticeship scheme for developers who are interested in the project but not so interested that they are willing to write an email to introduce themself or otherwise engage in normal human social interactions? Normal people will still be able to get involved if they want to, just like normal people can get jobs. You learn about the organization you’re interested in joining, you try to meet some people and introduce yourself, you gain trust and prove your worth. It can be true that a pull request once embodied some of these tasks, but it is not true that being unable to submit a request means that these tasks are no longer possible to perform. It just means you’ll have to do them differently, just like the rest of humanity does when they want to get involved in an organization. | |
| ▲ | smartmic 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The path is not closed; it must be earned through trust. It has always been this way. Also, note that "pull requests" are a GitHub invention; the concept is not native to Git or most other SCM systems. Before, you would have to submit your patch by email. It would be reviewed by the "maintainer" (or BDFL), who would then accept or reject it. If your contributions are accepted several times, you may be able to earn the rank of "maintainer." Returning to the topic at hand, the challenge for new developers is to earn trust. I bet there are ways to do so aside from the muddy swamp of GitHub's (AI) bazaar. | | |
| ▲ | creesch 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | In this case they seem to be firmly closing the path though > There will not be a separate process for submitting patches by other means. We do not want to create a shadow contribution system through issues, comments, email, or forks. External code can of course exist under the terms of the license, but we will not treat forks or patch dumps as a review queue for upstream Ladybird. This does raise the question on how they are going to get new maintainers. The only thing I can think of is by active outreach to people contributing to adjacent projects that are still open. But that does not seem ideal to me as that will not yield people specifically interested and caring for the project you invite them to. | | |
| ▲ | grebc 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | They don’t even have an alpha product yet. This used to be called vaporware but I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt that something will come in the future and they’re just focusing on fixing their own crappy code. |
| |
| ▲ | fc417fc802 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The amusing thing is that emailed patches and a listserv aren't actually all that different from github pull requests at the end of the day. In either case you're sending some code you wrote along to a group and asking them to look over it. The only real difference is the lack of a familiar web interface that's uniform across all projects and reduces friction to near zero, but emailing a patch hardly adds much friction in practice. I think the primary difference is that it removes some of the incentive to status seek because there's no centralized network operator tracking contributions and displaying them on your profile for others to look at. That said, the linked post explicitly says that Ladybird won't be accepting emailed patches, reviewing changes from downstream forks, or anything else. Hopefully that's not the case since entirely closing off the project would probably be an overreaction as well as jeopardize its future. | | |
| ▲ | skydhash 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | It’s really different because there’s no public signal between the email and the project itself. You can maybe search the log and see your patch, but there’s no central identity where you can brag about it. At most you can get a notice in a CONTRIBUTORS text file, or in the copyright header. |
|
| |
| ▲ | hypfer 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Just uh.. build your own thing? Boom. Maintainer. Easy. Why would normal people even want to become an unpaid janitor for someone else's stuff? | | |
| ▲ | justin66 an hour ago | parent [-] | | > Why would normal people even want to become an unpaid janitor for someone else's stuff? Social validation. Or, to be slightly more generous, sort of a compulsory way to force someone more experienced to provide some mentorship, by compelling them to review your pull requests. | | |
| ▲ | cestith 12 minutes ago | parent [-] | | That’s the point here, though. The maintainers of Ladybird don’t want to be compelled to mentor people making throwaway contributions without a commitment to the project. It’s pretty frustrating to try to mentor an absentee mentee who isn’t actually ready to learn from you. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | anilakar 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| If you grew up in a junkyard, getting adjusted to the social norms of a bazaar might feel like your way of life is being threatened. |
| |
| ▲ | cassianoleal 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | In your analogy, is the junkyard the development model of vibe coding? I look forward to the book: The Cathedral, The Bazaar and The Junkyard. | | |
| ▲ | pelagicAustral 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | fwiw I asked Claude to look at GP's post and write me a story titled "The Cathedral, the bazaar and the junkyard" and I have a pretty good time reading his riff. | | |
|
|
