Out of curiosity I asked Codex to build a version of this article that can be read/scrolled in a normal way while preserving the original graphics/text. Codex built it in about 10min with GPT-6.1 Sol High (consumed 8% of my 5h quota). It even thought of adding a dark/light mode switcher which is useful too. What a time to be alive.
What I’m curious about is, then, how should this problem be handled? Actually, there’s a point I’m somewhat curious about.
For projects with a bus factor of 1 or very low, and in a supply chain like this, there’s a somewhat difficult point regarding what kind of system should be established so that the core developers maintaining that kind of core receive appropriate compensation.
That’s true, after all. Technically very new or challenging technologies get the spotlight from many people, but these technologies are very important yet are a kind of engine technology that is less visible... I’m curious how this should be identified or selected.
That said, if you set up a committee, the committee could also become an inner circle based on their personal connections.
Sorry to be harsh but, dev gets hit by bus, project is forked, people move on.
I'm sympathetic to this topic but I hate the framing. "The people holding up the internet" includes thousands of people at Google, Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, and yes, some volunteers too who are doing as a hobby.
They are free to give it up and stop doing it. Some person or company will pick it up.
This article is biased towards open source developers and ignores all the employees at tier 1 backbones who are the ones actually holding up the internet.
It's indeed ridiculous how the world's trillion dollar private companies run on essential software that idealistic open-source maintainers build basically for free while scrambling to even make basic income.
I'm all for open ideals, but we shouldn't be as naive to ignore how stuff we build on these ideals - if offered completely free - will eventually almost exclusively profit only those private entities that best know how to use them, hide them in a 'proprietary chain' and use VC capital to invest more in PR, markting and sales than engineering to reap all the benefits off them.
Therefore, I think, the original problem was that most software wasn't automatically defaulting to a limited-commercial (e.g. business of > million revenue must pay for usage in their product) or AGPL licenses that would make the resulting products build on top available freely as well instead of private profit.
Maybe some countries could pay stipend to software developers who do that? I mean, this open source software enables other companies to produce cheaper software and to earn more money and they pay taxes from that money, so tiny bit of these taxes could also be redistributed back to some independent developers.
> Maybe some countries could pay stipend to software developers who do that?
Why should the public make up for private savings? Hey billionaire x does not like to spend for his software, let's all raise some funds so he does not have to.
> idealistic open-source maintainers build basically for free while scrambling to even make basic income.
Maybe these maintainers could simply cease doing all this free work? There are other ways to make a living. Perhaps even doing the same thing but with better negotiation skills. No one is forcing anyone to do this. The reality is that if 100% of the tzdb and SQLite teams disappeared today, Microsoft and Google would have these projects back under stable operation before the weekend.
We cannot expect a realistic economy to arbitrarily compensate people who originally did not seek compensation without a lot of really bad side effects. Does anyone on HN have any actual evidence that the maintainers of truly load bearing infrastructure (billions of devices+) are genuinely struggling economically?
> It's indeed ridiculous how the world's trillion dollar private companies run on essential software that idealistic open-source maintainers build basically for free while scrambling to even make basic income.
The most ridiculous thing is that idealistic open-source maintainers are still doing it, while this is being an established status quo for at least 30 years. Or maybe they have their incentive, and, while I don't find it palatable too, large corporations understands that. What's _your_ incentive in having such strong opinions about that ?
Honestly the most ridiculous part is that open-source maintainership is so easy to monetize.
All you have to do is declare a simple ULTIMATUM.MD:
I hereby guarantee that all project maintenance work will be deferred indefinitely if there are insufficient funds to continue maintenance work.
Project costs are split fairly according to a simple formula: pledge = maintenance budget / participants.
Pledgers can set a private maximum total bid during the campaign window. Generous pledgers can optionally set the maximum number of pledges they grant the project within their total bid.
I guarantee that received funds will not be used to build up project savings to extend the maintenance window beyond the funded window and that there will be no simultaneous campaigns to secure funding for future time periods beyond the current funded window.
I guarantee that the pledger's identity, maximum total bid, number of pledges, will be kept private to protect them from pledge analysis attacks that automatically infer the pledger budgets to calculate the maximum free rider potential.
I guarantee to always keep the project at the brink of abandonment to preserve the value of the pledges.
Hint: A rational pledger would consider these conditions amazing because all of them preserve their investment while protecting them from freeriders. 99% of the strategy here is to shift the freerider problem onto the pledger by guaranteeing that the project will be shut down, but this leaves the pledgers vulnerable to freeriders who analyse who is willing to fund the project to avoid funding it themselves.
I’m sorry, I find this really difficult to follow. You seem to alternate between using pledgers and participants, and it’s not clear what a pledge is versus a bid, or how pledgers make multiple pledges?
Is there a real world example of this sort of funding model you can point to?
If not open source, the company will make their own alternative, costing negligible resources relative to its size. The only people who lose out are other small developers who can’t so easily.
Agreed, and furthermore, I would imagine since some projects (thinking ghostty, linux, and others) are non-profits there are tax incentives for donating and supporting. Software stacks are still neglected, and that points to inefficiencies (companies and corps not valuing open source) and willful malice (hiding them in the "proprietary chain"), and just general abuse of the commons (take and don't pay).
AI has made the "hard" things more important. Everyone can now build an e-commerce website or demo, but the utilities, OSes, and browsers now serve as the base of those projects. They are beginning to be overwhelmed, whether it be through AI bug reports, exponential load on some platforms, or other indirect factors, and there isn't much relief in sight.
We need a large re-alignment of Math, Software and Sciences. I'm not elucidating anything new here, simply musing. Science and math workers can be focused on replication and application, and software expertise focuses on the "foundational" systems.
"I'm all for open ideals, but we shouldn't be as naive to ignore how stuff we build on these ideals - if offered completely free - will eventually almost exclusively profit only those private entities that best know how to use them, hide them in a 'proprietary chain' and use VC capital to invest more in PR, markting and sales than engineering to reap all the benefits off them." [Emphasis mine]
"Almost" but not totally
Some folks, myself included, use some of this software outside the mentioned corporate examples as part of open, non-corporate software projects
These open projects provide an _alternative_ to using corporate-controlled software. The corporations don't control the software
However if these projects are being financed by VC and other commercial interests then that alternative no longer exists because, let's be realistic, financing is effectively control
With my OpenBSD developer hat on, getting new hardware in the hands of developers is really important, many of us are hacking on 5-10 year old thinkpads that need replacing.
Shamelessly, if I may add my personal plea, in addition to funding the open source projects you use, if you can, please do consider directly supporting individual contributors/developers personally who work on those projects, many are volunteers and even a small monthly contribution could mean the difference.
I'm working on something similar for a PyCon talk.
While I agree that there is a problem of recognition and appreciation, I also feel like the spirit of making a small contribution without expecting a return is what enables the open whole source ecosystem that many of us benefit from.
A specific screw in a car can be crucial, but at the same time it's cheep, replaceable and easy to reproduce. When describing the achievement of a car you would never put this particular screw at the top.
I don't mean that the achievement of those people is unimportant, but dislike when people mix up the idea of "dependence out of convenience" vs "dependence out of necessity".
It’s not a failure of corporate. It’s a failure of community. Would it be better if all internet infrastructure would be controlled by corporate? I would argue: no, it wouldn’t.
Perhaps It should be NPOs like ISOC or IETF that supports private open source engagement into internet infrastructure ?
I had Claude whip up Fundcli a bunch of months ago. It goes through your atuin shell history and suggests places to donate to based on what you've been using.
These people aren't holding up the Internet. The software they built is doing that.
It's like how your house isn't its blueprint.
Writing software isn't the same as running it. Maintaining software isn't a burden that scales with the size of the user base. For software you don't operate yourself, the scaling factors are completely isolated from the size of the userbase. And they're completely isolated from the number of installs, since you don't operate those installs, you don't keep them updated or bring them back when they go down. That burden is borne by vendors.
Sensationalist takes are great for clicks, but there is no "there" there. If this was a true economic failure it'd have been fixed long ago.
My bet is these maintainers aren't in it for the money. After all they're not currently dead of starvation, so by definition they're okay. Not billionaires, but okay.
And that's okay! Not everyone wants to be a billionaire. Some people just wanna be that person in Nebraska thanklessly keeping the planet on axis.
This page has a11y problems. Reader mode fixes those but hides all the graphics, only text and pictures remain. Such a waste of an otherwise good article.
43 comments
[ 0.24 ms ] story [ 39.3 ms ] threadThat’s true, after all. Technically very new or challenging technologies get the spotlight from many people, but these technologies are very important yet are a kind of engine technology that is less visible... I’m curious how this should be identified or selected.
That said, if you set up a committee, the committee could also become an inner circle based on their personal connections.
I'm sympathetic to this topic but I hate the framing. "The people holding up the internet" includes thousands of people at Google, Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, and yes, some volunteers too who are doing as a hobby.
They are free to give it up and stop doing it. Some person or company will pick it up.
https://lucasr.org/2012/06/21/reader-mode-in-firefox-mobile/
I'm all for open ideals, but we shouldn't be as naive to ignore how stuff we build on these ideals - if offered completely free - will eventually almost exclusively profit only those private entities that best know how to use them, hide them in a 'proprietary chain' and use VC capital to invest more in PR, markting and sales than engineering to reap all the benefits off them.
Therefore, I think, the original problem was that most software wasn't automatically defaulting to a limited-commercial (e.g. business of > million revenue must pay for usage in their product) or AGPL licenses that would make the resulting products build on top available freely as well instead of private profit.
What would prevent abuse of this kind of program?
Why should the public make up for private savings? Hey billionaire x does not like to spend for his software, let's all raise some funds so he does not have to.
Now AI has made software abundant, there really isn't any need to pay maintainers really.
Enterprises can just fork it, rebuild the software for their own needs and not contribute anything back.
Even if the license is AGPL, they ignore it anyway and it is unenforceable.
Maybe these maintainers could simply cease doing all this free work? There are other ways to make a living. Perhaps even doing the same thing but with better negotiation skills. No one is forcing anyone to do this. The reality is that if 100% of the tzdb and SQLite teams disappeared today, Microsoft and Google would have these projects back under stable operation before the weekend.
We cannot expect a realistic economy to arbitrarily compensate people who originally did not seek compensation without a lot of really bad side effects. Does anyone on HN have any actual evidence that the maintainers of truly load bearing infrastructure (billions of devices+) are genuinely struggling economically?
That happens with linux, if businesses don't want their supply chain to vanish.
But, hey, we are trying communism :)
The most ridiculous thing is that idealistic open-source maintainers are still doing it, while this is being an established status quo for at least 30 years. Or maybe they have their incentive, and, while I don't find it palatable too, large corporations understands that. What's _your_ incentive in having such strong opinions about that ?
All you have to do is declare a simple ULTIMATUM.MD:
I hereby guarantee that all project maintenance work will be deferred indefinitely if there are insufficient funds to continue maintenance work.
Project costs are split fairly according to a simple formula: pledge = maintenance budget / participants.
Pledgers can set a private maximum total bid during the campaign window. Generous pledgers can optionally set the maximum number of pledges they grant the project within their total bid.
I guarantee that received funds will not be used to build up project savings to extend the maintenance window beyond the funded window and that there will be no simultaneous campaigns to secure funding for future time periods beyond the current funded window.
I guarantee that the pledger's identity, maximum total bid, number of pledges, will be kept private to protect them from pledge analysis attacks that automatically infer the pledger budgets to calculate the maximum free rider potential.
I guarantee to always keep the project at the brink of abandonment to preserve the value of the pledges.
Hint: A rational pledger would consider these conditions amazing because all of them preserve their investment while protecting them from freeriders. 99% of the strategy here is to shift the freerider problem onto the pledger by guaranteeing that the project will be shut down, but this leaves the pledgers vulnerable to freeriders who analyse who is willing to fund the project to avoid funding it themselves.
Is there a real world example of this sort of funding model you can point to?
AI has made the "hard" things more important. Everyone can now build an e-commerce website or demo, but the utilities, OSes, and browsers now serve as the base of those projects. They are beginning to be overwhelmed, whether it be through AI bug reports, exponential load on some platforms, or other indirect factors, and there isn't much relief in sight.
We need a large re-alignment of Math, Software and Sciences. I'm not elucidating anything new here, simply musing. Science and math workers can be focused on replication and application, and software expertise focuses on the "foundational" systems.
"Almost" but not totally
Some folks, myself included, use some of this software outside the mentioned corporate examples as part of open, non-corporate software projects
These open projects provide an _alternative_ to using corporate-controlled software. The corporations don't control the software
However if these projects are being financed by VC and other commercial interests then that alternative no longer exists because, let's be realistic, financing is effectively control
The xz story is so depressing. The only person who stepped up to help him was someone trying to plant a backdoor...
https://www.openbsd.org/want.html
The OpenBSD foundation is ~77% away from its fundraising goal for 2026!
https://www.openbsdfoundation.org/campaign2026.html
Shamelessly, if I may add my personal plea, in addition to funding the open source projects you use, if you can, please do consider directly supporting individual contributors/developers personally who work on those projects, many are volunteers and even a small monthly contribution could mean the difference.
https://brynet.ca/wallofpizza.html
While I agree that there is a problem of recognition and appreciation, I also feel like the spirit of making a small contribution without expecting a return is what enables the open whole source ecosystem that many of us benefit from.
I don't mean that the achievement of those people is unimportant, but dislike when people mix up the idea of "dependence out of convenience" vs "dependence out of necessity".
Perhaps It should be NPOs like ISOC or IETF that supports private open source engagement into internet infrastructure ?
https://github.com/fragmede/fundcli
It's like how your house isn't its blueprint.
Writing software isn't the same as running it. Maintaining software isn't a burden that scales with the size of the user base. For software you don't operate yourself, the scaling factors are completely isolated from the size of the userbase. And they're completely isolated from the number of installs, since you don't operate those installs, you don't keep them updated or bring them back when they go down. That burden is borne by vendors.
Sensationalist takes are great for clicks, but there is no "there" there. If this was a true economic failure it'd have been fixed long ago.
My bet is these maintainers aren't in it for the money. After all they're not currently dead of starvation, so by definition they're okay. Not billionaires, but okay.
And that's okay! Not everyone wants to be a billionaire. Some people just wanna be that person in Nebraska thanklessly keeping the planet on axis.
[0] https://x.com/6thgrade4ever/status/1433519577892327424
All this gatekeeping. All this hypothetical "I could totally have done it better".
Celebrating people who DO things is worthwhile.
The loud ones only take the credit.
(Londo Mollari, "In The Beginning")