When you talk about the point or purpose of open source, what are you referring to? I think of Stallman, print drivers, and users owning their work, so your assertions about the point of open source ring false to me.
You’re getting open source and free software mixed up. As I said, Open Source was a reformulation of Free Software to make it more business-friendly. Free Software is fundamentally a moral stance (it is wrong to prevent sharing); Open Source is fundamentally a pragmatic stance (building software is better when it is publicly collaborative).
Considering that Free Software predates Open Source, and many popular OSI-approved licenses also predate Open Source, how can you justify your core claim upthread:
> The people that see open source code and assume that it is being developed collaboratively are not being unreasonable – that’s the purpose of the open source movement. If that’s an inaccurate assumption for your software, then that’s fine – but it’s you that is breaking social norms, not them.
It sounds like you think anyone who selects an OSI-approved license, and makes the code publicly available, is somehow explicitly opting-in to the Open Source movement, and users should "reasonably" expect collaborative development as the default. Is that accurate? Because it seems completely nonsensical to me, especially considering the licenses predate the movement.
When you come across a random project using an OSI-approved license, there's no way to know the developers' motivations for selecting that license, if they haven't explicitly stated it. Your default seems to be an assumption that they're opting in to the "open source movement" and all of the social norms that you wrap up in that, but your assumption can be completely wrong, and that doesn't mean the developers are "breaking social norms" of a movement that they never subscribed to in the first place!
that's an interesting point. how important was user participation in the development of software for RMS? he wanted to be able to share his modifications with anyone. presumably that includes upstream. so even if not said explicitly, i'd argue that collaboration was implied.
OP says open source is a reformulation of free software.
Stallman created free software and is distinctly against open source, which is more or less free software but without the philosophy, the concern for user rights [1]. Associating RMS and his printer with the purpose of open source would somewhat be a mistake / a faux pas (but would be nailing it for the purpose of free software!).
The purpose of free software is user freedom (and not the cooperative development). The original purpose of open source is selling the idea of free software to the corporate world by making it less scary to them, by trying to remove its political part. [I suspect the people who created open source might have been sensitive to the user freedom aspect and wanted to convince corporate to do free software for this reason but thought that hiding this part was a good strategy [2, 3]. I personally think this was a fatal mistake: nowadays, although the infrastructure is mostly open source (and has been succeeding in this regard), end user facing software is still mostly proprietary exactly because software companies don't think they ought to do free software.]
I don't think the cooperative development part is in the purpose of open source. In any case, the open source definition and the free software definition don't concern themselves with this and are purely about what you can do with the code.
Of course open source development models are intimately bound to open source and free software but and were one of the things sold to corporate as more efficient.
I live just west of Lake Michigan, and what you described would be a high-snow winter here. The lake effect is real. I grew up in the Cleveland area, and I was surprised how much less snow we get in Wisconsin. Longer, colder winters, though.
I lived in Chicagoland for a few years as well, I didn’t notice much of a difference. I would assume that’s similar to Wisconsin.
Of course, I was in apartments with covered parking and snow removal services the whole time, so I didn’t need to care too much.
I do remember the guys in the Chicago office talking about when they got a foot or so of snow and had to walk to the nearby hotel to spend the night, because it wasn’t safe to drive home. I heard stories like that from people in the Michigan office too, but in my 20 years working I still never ran into it. Just lucky I guess.
> lurk in the middle of the road and make a left turn once oncoming traffic is stopped for the red
In the jurisdictions I'm familiar with, this is the proper way to make a left-hand turn. Many intersections are designed such that this is the only realistic way to ever turn left (high traffic, no left arrow).
Most red light rules are written against entering the intersection on red. If you're already in the intersection, you're allowed to safely proceed through and out of the intersection on red. That can be challenging, of course, if oncoming traffic is running the red light.
Just to add a counterpoint, I was hired as employee #3 in 2011. In 2020, I was able to sell 5.8% of my stake for $200K (as part of Series C). In 2021, I sold another 4.4% for $500K (Series D on terms too good to refuse). I still hold equity or options in nearly 0.5% of the company (which is still private).
My wife and I used about half the proceeds of those sales to buy a house (cash offer) in late 2021.
I don’t know what proportion of early employees get screwed, but people who do well are usually smart to avoid posting publicly about it (and I am apparently an idiot).
Maybe I'm bitter from getting burned but I don't think this is really counterpoint. Employee #3 you're just shy of being a co-founder and 2011 was an era where equity grants were real and companies weren't yet so clever about handing out Leprechaun gold.
EDIT: Random aside, but I looked up "leprechaun gold" and I guess the trope of a gold-like substance that disappears from your pocket when you're not looking is actually from Harry Potter and not a part of the traditional folklore.
It would be worse than the nationwide average. Battleground swing states would swing way right. The Republican voters in the suburbs have passports at a much higher rate than the Democrat voters in the poor neighborhoods.
That assumes academic achievement should be the primary aim of childhood. What I learned in school was incredibly important—don’t get me wrong—but what I learned over the summer was arguably more important.
As a child of divorce, I cherished 6 straight weeks at my mom’s house (we only visited every other weekend during school). As a working class kid, I earned probably half my annual spending money over the summer.
My wife and I now have kids, and we’ve always loved to travel (and needed to just to visit family). Summer is the only time available for extended family trips (2+ weeks).
Maybe to you, but I was broke during and shortly after college. If I could have picked up some gig work when I needed it, that would have been a huge help.
In addition to what others have said, daily demands on time and headspace can be overwhelming. My wife spends over an hour every day managing a chronic health condition. Raising kids well takes a lot of time every day. Some have loved ones with high needs that require care. Many spend 2+ hours commuting daily. Many work multiple jobs. Some spend a lot of time traveling away from home. Serious injuries can disrupt exercise routines and cause vicious cycles. Poor finances makes everything harder. Stress and depression can result from and exacerbate all of this.
Appreciate your health and time and focus and good habits while you can, and may you keep them as long as possible.
US software engineer. I have 24 days of PTO, 15 company holidays, and 9 sick days. 10 weeks for parental leave (16 for moms). $240K salary, $400-600K in annual vesting equity. That’s private paper equity, but I’ve already been able to cash out $700K and buy a house with cash.
Fully remote. I can expense $120/month for phone and internet, and a few lunches each month, too. I can get a new laptop and/or monitor sent to me just by asking.
When I do visit the office, the trip is fully expensed. Free daily lunch. Coffee and drinks and snacks everywhere, free. Private desks in a semi-open office with couches scattered around. Lounges with hundreds of board games, nearly all of which have seen table time during work hours.
Primary projects are tracked in a knowledge-sharing system, but I can mostly work on what I want to. I’m encouraged to merge small fixes and refactors without any ticket-pushing at all. Yelling by managers or anyone would not be tolerated.
“At-will” is more FUD than reality in my experience. Most companies, when firing or laying someone off, give something like 2 weeks of severance for every year of service.
That compensation is better isn't in dispute. My question is about worker rights, how much of the stuff you posted is just your company vs US law? Are you protected better by law than someone here would be?
What is more important, the law, or the typical employee experience? If you're in a strong market where workers are in demand (evidenced somewhat by higher compensation), then workers will tend to be treated better for fear that they will leave for another opportunity (remember: "at will"). If workers have fewer opportunities, then how much can the law really help?
Are there specific protections that are lacking in the US that you would expect to result in worse employee outcomes?
I'm not sure what any of that has to do with my question. The person I replied to said that from what he knew worker rights were somewhat better in the US so I asked for examples. How an employer treats you is of course important, but can't really be considered worker rights if they can decide to change that depending on market conditions.
Again, I'm not arguing about who has it better. I am asking a very narrow question about worker rights differences between the two countries. If you want me to say that US software workers have it better, then sure. But that's not really what I'm asking.
I work at more typical software job for an AUS company operating in the US ... AUS workers make less money than the US office but they can rollover PTO indefinitely, right to log off, etc. I think the main reason people come to the US to work from aus is the cost of housing anywhere near the cities is exorbitant and the australian version of the american dream is unbelievably dead.
I wish I could suggest something for you. My path was moving to the Bay Area 13 years ago to work for a small startup, helping to grow it, then going remote after a few years. Startup is a B2B with an ethical technical founder, and it had a credible business model from day 1.
reply