2017-09-14 16:58 GMT+02:00 Marshall Conover <marzhal...@gmail.com>:

> ...but enthusiasm for the concept seems lukewarm, and I'm coming to the
> point where I feel I'm going to need to make a strong argument for...
>

2017-09-15 2:53 GMT+02:00 Marshall Conover <marzhal...@gmail.com>:

> It is detrimental to not have this feature, and not having it, in sum,
> will waste millions of man-hours for the people who use this operating
> system, the same way it's wasted lifetimes not being in Mac or Windows.
>

IMHO, there is a wise suggestion hidden in khm jokes.

It's pretty naive to think that contributing to open source projects leaded
by a large company (even just informally, by its employees) you can pursue
these kind of values.

Your contributions might be welcomed for a while, if they align with their
current objectives.
But you are not your contributions, and since you freely agreed to donate
your time for free, they don't owe you anything.

As long as they lead the project, the choice of open source license is just
marketing: there's neither openness nor freedom there.


Think about this for a while: if Google (or Microsoft, or...) would care
about wasted man-hours (or wasted gigawatts) do you think they would have
turned HTML browsers to what they are now?


If you want to contribute to Fuchsia (or any similarly leaded project),
start by writing tests, reviewing code, fixing small bugs, implementing the
interfaces they designed and so on... they will thanks you a lot for your
free and (really) useful work.
And as long as you align with their purposes they will threat you as a peer.

It's not that those developers are evil but there's a large amount of
politics inside these companies they have to cope with.
And ultimately, the companies that pay them are not pursuing values, just
long term profits.


Giacomo

Reply via email to