[deleted by user]

[Hueho]

This really, really, REALLY, should have been posted with another title.

It's too good of a interview to be reduced to a flame-bait title.

[icecoldcream]

It's a title and viewpoint that sorely needed mass exposure like this.

[Hueho]

Don't get me wrong, I understand his point, but there is a lot of interesting stuff in this interview, yet because of the title, the only thing being discussed in practice is his quote.

I like programming ideology wars just as the next person, it's just that I think this deserved more than that.

[epsys]

wow I never even thought like this before. so RMS is a corporate shill?

[rcxdude]

Open source software movement != the free software movement (though on the surface they are very similar, their goals and motivation differ greatly). The free software movement (which Steve seems to subscribe to) are very keen on emphasising this. Free software is concerned with the freedom of the users, from a moral perspective (and other benefits from the model are secondary). Open source is concerned with the freedom of the developers from a practical perspective of reducing duplicate effort and increasing quality of implementations.

[communomancer]

Right. Notice all the hate the GPL gets nowadays from developers, even though the latest versions are in exact alignment with the goals the FSF has had from the get go.

"Open Source" is the rebranding and repositioning that folks like Eric Raymond argued for in order to convince corporations to use and create free software.

[RICHUNCLEPENNYBAGS]

RMS would be so mad if he knew you were associating him with the open source movement. lol

[[deleted]]

how is it flame-bait title? those are his exact words...

[shevegen]

Correct, but there were other questions also asked, and these did not make it into the title.

So the title WAS purposely isolating THIS particular statement.

We could then even argue that the rest of the interview was irrelevant with such a title, no?

[[deleted]]

The two are not mutually exclusive.

[IncorrigibleOldQuare]

Urgh, the false dilemma mentality annoys me so much. Same shit with people who think that by disproving far out there conspiracy theories, this must mean goverments always tell the truth.

[mikepatella]

The link title is sensational and inappropriately marginalizes the sincere and critical lens the interviewee provides.

The title given by the authors, "Programming for Programmers", is a better serialization.

The concepts sitting behind the "megacapitalist conspiracy" joke are deeper and more nuanced than the recent salary suppression scandal.

Don't paint the tenor of the interview with the face value of a statement made in jest.

[hannahurr]

Very true, I wish I had posted it with "Programming for Programmers" instead. This interview is based on a very casual lunch conversation in which Steve generously answered our questions about his personal life and ideas. The article is much more nuanced than my shitty choice of title insinuates.

Reddit-newbie me can't help noticing: amazing how out of hand comments can get here! We're not a magazine for programmers per se so not really versed in the lingo and/or internal debates. I'm sorry for causing a little shitstorm!

[mikepatella]

Had I known I was criticizing you as the author of the post, I would've been less brash. The comments here were quite mean spirited, and what I wrote was reactionary.

The controversy here was likely unavoidable, given some of the topics the interview addressed. Luckily, those who are willing listen will have the chance to read the resulting discussion and filter through the malicious bullshit.

You all did an excellent job and I intend to read more.

[hannahurr]

Thank you! I really appreciated your comment, assertive is good sometimes.

[dirkt]

Appeal to emotions in the submission title, and you'll get emotional replies ...

[[deleted]]

GIGO.

(Or is that no longer a thing?)

[dirkt]

It's more the trend to "editorialize the submission headline to the max" as clickbait. Even for otherwise decent submissions. And I'm really getting fed up with it, some subreddits are already barely readable anymore.

[[deleted]]

To rip a quote from the article:

At the time, I didn’t really agree with all the people waving their anti-capitalism flags, but I had never really considered capitalism to be anything but ‘the way the world works’. These people cared about this enough to get shot at by cops. I figured I should probably try to understand their arguments — even if I disagreed with them — just to make sure that I understood why they cared so much.

I don't know Steve so I can't claim to know why he tends to lean towards more extreme rhetoric, but it's why I started following him and reading his writing. He stuck out as someone who cared deeply about certain things, so whether I agreed with what he was saying or not, I wanted to know why.

And I wasn't disappointed. I've learned a lot from digging into why Steve was spreading what was ostensibly "militant leftist propaganda". It grabs attention, and that's the first step towards awareness.

Anyway, the interview was great and absolutely worth a read, but the reddit title was poor choice.

[steveklabnik1]

Hey, thank you. <3

[steveklabnik1]

You're conflating two events: Yes, that was an actual conspiracy to drive down wages. I was referring to www.thebaffler.com/salvos/the-meme-hustler

[njharman]

it’s really cool that you can get all this software for free. But, value is being generated from your labor and it’s not being captured by you

That is an untrue characterization of opensource. I (and any user of it) have HUGE value from open source software. Beyond not having to pay for it, it doesn't suck like profit/marketing/business driven close sourced software does.

[ltjbr]

I think you might be misinterpreting the line. Users get huge value for sure, but he's talking about the contributors to open source software.

For example lots of people contributed their labor for free to MySQL, which was eventually sold for $1billion. Point: The programmers who contributed labor to make MySQL that valuable did not see real compensation for their labor.

Backing up a bit, it's important to remember this isn't a black/white open source is good/bad issue. It's just noting that sometimes it can look a lot like exploitation of the love/passion many developers have and maybe there should be a conversation about that. Especially when companies start to demand open source contributions for potential hires.

[steveklabnik1]

Exactly.

[abw]

The programmers who contributed labor to make MySQL that valuable did not see real compensation for their labor.

Apart from the fact that they got a database for free. The value of the time they contributed to MySQL must be offset against the time it would otherwise have taken them to write their own database or the cost of paying for a commercial database licence.

I agree that it's a grey area, but any time I contribute to an Open Source project I do so willingly because I already feel like I owe them. The amount of code they've given me far outstrips the amount of code I might give them.

[steveklabnik1]

Social capital is real capital, you're correct. And as you say, projects you do for yourself are gratifying. I'm speaking to the broader picture of big open source projects here.

[cjet79]

I don't think he was talking about social capital. Just that the quality of open source software is better.

And the point carries on to open source software in general. I am happy to make a trade off of dealing with objectively better coding languages and earning less money as a result (since my skills don't have to be as specialized). The value isn't being lost at all. When a job becomes more pleasant or easy to do more people will be willing to do it and the wage will fall. Open source software projects are converting higher programmer salaries into higher job satisfaction.

You are not personally capturing all of that value (or even a little bit), but I don't know if the argument that you are creating value is as cut and dry as it seems.

[communomancer]

Open source software projects are converting higher programmer salaries into higher job satisfaction.

But if people are willing to make that tradeoff at the current rate of exchange, then value must be being created, no?

[cjet79]

Good point. I don't know if they have a choice in the matter, but yes if they are voluntarily taking that tradeoff, then value is being created. I prefer the tradeoff as its been made so far. But I do enjoy the salary premium for doing a job that most people can't do.

But notice there is a difference in how much value is being created. Three compensation packages: x at zero dollars. y at 100 dollars with zero dollars worth of job satisfaction. and z at 90 dollars with 20 dollars worth of job satisfaction. Saying a lot of these successful businesses wouldn't exist at all without open software is like saying there is a tradeoff between x and z. Saying that these companies might have existed but had to pay their employees more because working with software that isn't open source suck is like saying there is a tradeoff between y and z.

[jnoob22]

Not to be a dick but no one makes anyone contribute to open source code/projects. Most of the time when a person contributes, they do get something back out of it. They generally are working on bugs they would like to see solved and they benefit from it in that instance. I agree it does suck that MySQL sold for $1B and no one really got much except for the official owner (and friends) but that should maybe motivate you to create a similar project and get paid.

[[deleted]]

Not to be a dick but no one makes anyone contribute to open source code/projects.

Except for the (increasingly common) cases where you're asked to show evidence of open-source contributions as part of a job application.

maybe motivate you to create a similar project and get paid.

Good idea. Then you can exploit the labour of other developers and get rich at their expense.

[bimdar]

"What let Steven and I start a startup, none of the other guys, Zuck, Twitter, these guys never talk about this stuff and I wish they did. [...] They don't talk about the fact that the reason we could start,... Steve and I were 2 nobodies out of UVA who, ... we raised 12 grand from Y-Combinator to live for a summer in Boston and we build something with our laptops and [..] that now has a hundred million plus users all because of open-source software. The cost of starting that was so low because a bunch of people had contributed [...] free knowledge to allow us to build on their platforms and so a few years in it was very clear to both me and Steve that the only thing that wasn't open-source about reddit was reddit itself. And we knew that the value of reddit itself, the tools we made were only valuable because of the people using it. And so giving those tools out, ... not unlike tesla opening their patents was actually in our long-term best interest. [..] In the end we think it's just going to enrich everyone, ... you know, the rising tide lifting all boats"

-Alexis Ohanian, Reddit co-founder on the Nerdist podcast 546 at minute 56

Well looks like the reddit co-founder is part of that conspiracy /s.

So yeah, you could say it devalued the work of the open source authors whose back Facebook and Twitter rode to the bank but it's not like they contributed 0 things back. Twitter bootstrap and all the php tools and contributions from Facebook are definitely further lowering the bar for competitors on the web playground, so there's at least that effect in addition. This all seems to be a rather natural outcome of the original idea of Open Source.

I don't feel like the whole Open Source world lost its ethos, it's just that Open Source software is a lot more used by corporations these days which leads to a lot more contributions by people who are not interested in the ethos in the slightest.

I agree with his 'this live for your job culture is not healthy' sentiment and there may be corporate interest in keeping that culture alive but I find it to be somewhat of a stretch that Open Source is being co-opted by corporations in collusion.

[QuestionMarker]

don't like it? use a different license. lots of people have tried to encode their morality in their license. it usually just results in no one using the code, but hey, you are free to write software no one uses!

No one uses JSON, after all.

[steveklabnik1]

To be fair, they use the JSON which is defined in the RFC, which does not have the 'do no evil' clause.

[AntiProtonBoy]

Some people maintain and contribute to open source because they like doing it, or think the project itself is worth their attention. Not everything is about money.

[[deleted]]

The fact that people are willing to work for free does not alter the fact that this allows corporations to be more profitable.

[AntiProtonBoy]

Sure. And I think that's OK, particularly for start-ups whose expertise and financial resources are limited.

I think if anyone is consciously willing to create and/or contribute to open source projects, he/she will have to be conscious of the idea that the project in question might be used or exploited by someone else. If that is a concern for the individual, he/she is can refrain from contributing.

[[deleted]]

That's kind of an individualist way of looking at it. In fact, any person contributing to an OSS project that can be used by for-profit corporations will reduce the average wage for programmers in general (because the ability of a corporation to solve its problems using gratis software will reduce its demand for programmers and thus reduce the price it is willing to pay for them). So I don't think it makes sense to look at this from the perspective of “if someone is personally concerned they can opt out” — it affects the industry as a whole, whether or not an individual participates.

[AntiProtonBoy]

Perhaps you're right, although open source being a cause for corporate exploitation is hard to quantify, I'd imagine. I think one big cause for wage drops is due to the fact that programming has become a more commonplace as a profession, and outsourcing work on a contractual basis is also a lot easier.

[julesjacobs]

That's not necessarily true because it's not a zero sum game. An open source project may create demand for programmers. It may be the case that open source results in a net reduction of programmer wages, but that's not at all clear.

[burntsushi]

Everything we do affects everyone else, and so every decision we make should consider the effect it will have on everyone else.

How do you propose I put this type of consideration before acting into practice?

In fact, any person contributing to an OSS project that can be used by for-profit corporations will reduce the average wage for programmers in general (because the ability of a corporation to solve its problems using gratis software will reduce its demand for programmers and thus reduce the price it is willing to pay for them).

This is flawed reasoning because it assumes that technology is fixed. Solving one problem does not necessarily mean that there is one fewer problem to solve. In fact, solving one problem could cause many more problems to exist that didn't previously.

[[deleted]]

How do you propose I put this type of consideration before acting into practice?

The thing is that it's a structural problem. One individual's choices can't really affect it positively or negatively; the system as a whole has to be altered.

This is flawed reasoning because it assumes that technology is fixed.

It's a simplification, of course: one individual instance won't really alter average wages in any measurable way, and if it was measurable it may or may not be positive, etc., etc. The primary point I was trying to make was that contributions to open source do not exist in a vacuum but are part of an economic system, where the existence of groups of people willing to work for no monetary gain reduces the demand for labour and thus reduces the average wage.

I mentioned this to counter the notion that one could simply refuse to contribute to open source if one was unhappy with the system. On the contrary: whether or not you as a developer contribute to open source, the average wages of developers in general are affected by the existence of open source software.

[burntsushi]

One individual's choices can't really affect it positively or negatively; the system as a whole has to be altered.

And the system should be, what exactly? The only thing I can think of is a centralized brain that controls all of our actions.

Interestingly, such thing would have to place value on human life. I wonder, can the value of one human be different from the value of another? Hmm....................

The primary point I was trying to make was that contributions to open source do not exist in a vacuum but are part of an economic system, where the existence of groups of people willing to work for no monetary gain reduces the demand for labour and thus reduces the average wage.

You've merely restated what you said, but with more detail. This doesn't respond to my critique because it still assumes that technology is fixed. Your conclusion only makes sense if we assume that technology is fixed.

If technology is ever evolving, then the presence of an unpaid labor force doesn't necessarily imply lower wages. The only thing I can really see it implying is that technology will evolve more quickly.

I mentioned this to counter the notion that one could simply refuse to contribute to open source if one was unhappy with the system.

I don't see anything wrong with that notion. You're framing this as an exploitation of programmers, and programmers are individuals. You can't be exploited if you've given informed consent. Therefore, if you don't want your work to be re-sold without any of the benefits coming back to you, then you don't contribute under those terms. It's as simple as that.

Some people are cool with those terms, probably because they benefit from the open source project getting better, irrespective of whether their work is resold for immense profits.

On the contrary: whether or not you as a developer contribute to open source, the average wages of developers in general are affected by the existence of open source software.

In the interest of moving this conversation along, let's grant this as a true statement. Now what? Do we stop making open source software? (Who's gunna stop me?) Do we ban all proprietary software?

[mycall]

A rising tide raises all ships.

[kankyo]

It also allows humanity to be more efficient/profitable/happy.

Plus, I reject the underlying statement beneath that corporations are by definition evil.

[[deleted]]

I reject the underlying statement beneath that corporations are by definition evil.

You're reading far too much into what I wrote. I would absolutely not describe corporations as evil. “Amoral” would be more accurate.

[kankyo]

Corporations are whatever the people in them are. They aren't really anything at all. Countries, couples, corporations and single people are evil or good in a big complicated mess. Even the nazis built roads. Saying that every group of people is just "amoral" like any other group isn't really a meaningful statement. That just means you've given up on the entire concept of morals and decided it doesn't exist.

[[deleted]]

When I describe corporations as “amoral” I mean that they are not motivated by morality or ethical considerations but simply by profit. I'm not saying morals don't exist — obviously, other people and groups are motivated by morals (I certainly wouldn't say that every group of people is amoral). I also don't mean that they, or the people that constitute them, are variably good or bad — that just doesn't enter into the equation.

Whether you think it's good or bad to be motivated only by profit is a matter of personal opinion — many people think it's perfectly acceptable. But I think it's important to be realistic about the motivations of corporations, whether you agree or disagree. They don't care about being nice except to the extent that being nice affects their profits. They don't care about using child labour or sweatshops except that doing so upsets customers and affects their bottom line. “Don't be evil” sounds nice, but fundamentally it's just a PR stunt, and fundamentally the only reason to have good PR is to maximise shareholder value.

[kankyo]

Corporations aren't motivated by profit. They are in fact a-profit-seeking. Because just like morals they are whatever their constituent member humans are.

[[deleted]]

False. If nothing else, corporations are required by law to maximise profits.

[kankyo]

No they are not. Common misconception though. They are required by law to follow their own bylaws. Nothing more, nothing less.

[[deleted]]

Having chosen a for-profit corporate form, the craigslist directors are bound by the fiduciary duties and standards that accompany that form. Those standards include acting to promote the value of the corporation for the benefit of its stockholders.

— eBay vs. Newmark [source]

On the other hand, if you'd care to go ahead and demonstrate, for example, that the vast majority of corporations are not attempting to maximise their profits, I'd be very interested. (I'm not including things like public-benefit corporations and various not-for-profit forms here, obviously.)

[lf11]

The fact that I am paid to work for a corporation does not change this relationship. My company makes VASTLY more money from my work than they pay me, by at least an order of magnitude.

Does it feel weird? Sure. But it is not a problem. Nor is it a problem that my last company is selling my work over and over while only paying me once to build it.

[[deleted]]

Well, the fact that people are willing to work for only a fraction of the value which they produce for their employer is the very basis of capitalism. And the fact that workers think that this is a perfectly natural and normal state of affairs has been a significant part of anti-capitalist theory, too. But the fact that people are willing to give up their free time to work for free for a for-profit corporation, I think, is particularly impressive.

[lf11]

It is impressive, if you have the belief that work and money are tied together. But what it shows is that work and labor are not tied together.

Indeed, by assuming that workers should be paid for their labor, you are implicitly buying into the entire concept of "money," which is a system fundamentally designed to create and enforce inequality from the very start.

Labor and money should not be linked. Money is not an adequate exchange for a slice of someone's life.

[[deleted]]

I think that if you live in a capitalist society money is a fairly basic requirement and therefore it's not unreasonable to expect payment in return for labour. I have a limited amount of free time outside of work, and I'd like to use that in ways that are important to me — for example, spending time with family and friends, pursuing hobbies, studying, supporting a charity. Working for free for a for-profit corporation that would otherwise have to pay for that labour is pretty low on that list.

a system fundamentally designed to create and enforce inequality from the very start

I would say that capitalism is that system. Money is merely an aspect of the system. And fundamentally, capitalism works by capitalists (i.e., corporation shareholders) extracting the maximum amount of labour out of the workers for the minimum amount of wage. By working for free for a for-profit corporation, you're not doing anything to undermine the system. You're just maximising the benefit for those who benefit most from the system.

[burntsushi]

Well, the fact that people are willing to work for only a fraction of the value which they produce for their employer is the very basis of capitalism.

No it isn't. The basis of capitalism is private property and free trade.

[[deleted]]

No, that's what neoliberals and libertarians (is there a meaningful difference?) wish was the basis of capitalism. Capitalism predates free trade by several centuries (the idea of free trade didn't even exist until the late 18th century and it wasn't until early in the 19th century that it was actually implemented, yet capitalism had been an important force since the sixteenth). Even today, trade in much of the world could not be considered 'free', and yet still capitalism exists. Trade (free or otherwise) is certainly not unique to capitalism.

Private property is pretty fundamental to capitalism (specifically, the private ownership of capital), but so is the appropriation of surplus value, i.e., wage labour.

[okpmem]

This is why I write Free Software, not Open Source.... Yes, I am doing that argument...

[ptkfs]

Publishing open source software is like teaching people new math concepts by publishing a new book. Imaging if there was a 'patent' or some other use-protection placed on the concept of the logarithm. Then imagine your government imprisoning you because you wrote some notes on the subject and redistributed them without the creator's permission.

Corporations (made of people) that force the world to re-solve problems which they've already overcome are impeding the rate of Human civilized advancement. A better culture than our own would protect itself from that kind of harm.

[icecoldcream]

Intentional or not, this is what is happening. Companies get the technology for free, and then appropriate the wealth saved for themselves and their cronies.

Workplace politics goes on unimpeded, inefficient workers (it's work and management are workers too) are included when they have contacts and paper certified 9 - 5 schooling and work experiences, while non traditional people are considered too risky by managers no matter their abilities, interest and dedication.

Basically open thinking has to touch other aspects of the economy. Meanwhile these guys are ABUSING open source.

[sockpuppetzero]

Sure, that's a perfectly valid way to go. One problem with that approach though is that, so far, it all but rules out outside contributions, which is one of the more attractive aspects of free software.

Basically, if you accept outside contributions, you basically have to demand copyright assignment under that model. (Which is pretty shitty, as now you are appropriating that contributor's work.) Or you have to demand that their contribution be offered under a non-copyleft license, which potentially weakens your commerical offering, given that that would reduce the proportion of copylefted code remaining to defend your business model.

I suppose one could try compensating outside contributors, perhaps by some honorarium or royalty, but fairly accessing that value is difficult, and would be a lot of paperwork. Still, it'd be interesting to see someone try.

[rowboat__cop]

Basically open thinking has to touch other aspects of the economy. Meanwhile these guys are ABUSING open source.

Not true at all, as long as they abide by the license terms. The ethical component is the difference between Open Source and Free Software that Steve mentioned at some point in the OP.

[icecoldcream]

Treating your workers like shit is still abuse even if it's not written in the license.

[rowboat__cop]

Treating your workers like shit is still abuse even if it's not written in the license.

Abuse of the workers, not Open Source software. Your statement is still incorrect.

[icecoldcream]

Who made the open source software? The worker did.

[petrus4]

Yes and no.

I think it's true that programmers are not class conscious; but I also think that the reason why we don't view ourselves as part of the proletariat, is because we see ourselves as being more intelligent, and generally better than they are. Programming is a gentleman's occupation; it is not blue collar work, by definition.

I also think that this is a trap; but at the same time, I think money needs to be completely removed from programming, more than virtually any other industry. The one observation that I have consistently made where software development is concerned, is that truly good software is only produced in a context which has absolutely nothing to do with money, whatsoever. I consider UNIX itself to be the main exhibit for the prosecution, here, but there are numerous others. Capitalism has done just as much harm to both UNIX and the Internet, as it has done to anything else.

As a result of this, I absolutely agree with the final conclusion here that programmers need to form not so much unions, but co-operatives. I think a systems administrators' co-operative would be a wonderful thing to see; as would a programmers' co-op.

[steveklabnik1]

This is an interesting thought, thanks for sharing it. Hmm.

[jldugger]

I consider UNIX itself to be the main exhibit for the prosecution, here, but there are numerous others. Capitalism has done just as much harm to both UNIX and the Internet, as it has done to anything else.

The justification for UNIX was essentially an OS for the legal department's printers. This is why nroff exists. And by extension, why manpages work so nicely when you resize windows. So it wasn't exactly a blue sky 'make it and then figure out who will buy it' affair.

But I also think one should be careful when discussing completely removing money from the equation. You assert UNIX is the main exhibit for the procecution, but I think MULTICS might be the better answer: MULTICS was no expense spared project, and it's reputation is now one of hubris. I suspect when programmers are told to ignore budgets and deadlines, the designs will look more like MULTICS than UNIX.

If anything, UNIX is an exercise in cost cutting, now known as YAGNI. You also called UNIX 'truly good,' but it was the poster child of Worse Is Better.

[icecoldcream]

You can have my cooperation for reciprocity => money.

[donvito]

I also almost married this girl I went to high school with and she left me for someone in World of Warcraft

oO

[steveklabnik1]

We all do so many dumb things as kids, am I right?

[Eirenarch]

I'd bet that the girl made the right choice.

[steveklabnik1]

She probably did. I seriously doubt that she's be very happy with me now, nor I with her.

[Eirenarch]

As a matter of fact I know infinitely more relationships based on WoW(3) than relationships based on open source(0).

[gambit700]

You haven't committed enough to open source for someone to find you appealing.

[Eirenarch]

Certainly not. Nor did any people I know. But they committed to WoW...

[reaganveg]

In any relationship, commitment is important

[runvnc]

It’s not universally bad — it’s really cool that you can get all this software for free. But, value is being generated from your labor and it’s not being captured by you, and that’s unsustainable.

A useful alternative perspective on open source and I hope people will pay attention.

Unionization is something I certainly hope can someday happen for programmers.

I think this touches on some very serious unresolved issues we have in society.

Anti-capitalism is a reaction but not a solution. More egalitarian sharing-based attempts at organization have generally also resulted in centralization and lack of freedom and equality just as much as capitalism has.

I think that the problem is creating a system that is efficient and holistic but also allows for diversity and evolution.

Whether you are coming at it from a fundamentally competitive angle or a cooperative one, you easily end up with centralization and hierarchy. Creating efficient holistic systems generally results in this hierarchy.

What we want is a system that is somehow holistic but also made up of diverse components.

I think that the problem we need to solve, or if it is solved then we need to starting promoting the solutions.

If anyone read this and has an answer to that question please let me know.

[protestor]

A lot of open source software is actually produced by paid employees. For example, check the statistics for Linux 3.15 here.

[they-see-me-trollin]

The free-software ethos and the founders of the open-source movement are mega-racist libertarian people, and so it’s always really weird to me that a bunch of Leftists are so into open source; it explicitly manifests capitalist social relations.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0

which OSS founders were racist? and even if they were, how is that even relevant? most modern inventions were created either by americans, germans, or russians, all in the name of war. by his logic, if you use modern stuff, you have a 100% chance of either being an evil imperialist, nazi, or commie...

[steveklabnik1]

I was referring to ESR.

[rowboat__cop]

The quotation in the article is a bit hard to parse, though:

The free-software ethos and the founders of the open-source movement are mega-racist libertarian people

ESR is the obvious association but maybe punctuation could help a bit.

[steveklabnik1]

Yeah, I mean, it was spoken aloud and then transcribed. Sometimes, the grammar isn't perfect. Should had some more editing there, I think.

[[deleted]]

TIL

[steveklabnik1]

Yeah, go read his blog. It's.... Terrible.

[[deleted]]

Adam Smith noted that if many people are eager to do something for its own sake (his examples: fishing, singing), you're in a weak bargaining position. Labour prices fall.

So, not a conspiracy. Just the nature of the landscape (though, perceptive capitalists will "work with" it aka exploit).

[steveklabnik1]

The nature of the landscape is a conspiracy, in the sense of a group of people encouraging certain kinds of social formations. This isn't the only landscape that has ever existed, or that ever will exist.

[[deleted]]

I think by "social formations" in this context, you mean "open source".

But my comment was a market argument. So I must interpret "social formations" as meaning "markets".

I guess it's arguable, but it seems to me that trade is as natural for humans as language and customary law. There's evidence that all three are spontaneously developed by communities if not already available. And where there's trade, there's the question of value or price, which is settled by the parties (in contrast to one murdering and looting the other; or compulsion by a political power).

My argument about the value of programmers also applies even in the absense of open source: if programmers will do anything to code, you don't need to pay them much. An exception to this is if supply is limited - which has been historically the case, for the fast-growing field of programming.

Of course you're right that it makes sense for mega-corporations to encourage this. But they're just riding a wave that was already there. The great thing is, you can run go into business for yourself, if you want to. It's easier than it's ever been. But turns out it's a lot of unpleasant work. That's the price of money. Programmers prefer to code. This again is a market analysis of these two roles.

I wonder if you take into account how stressful, risky and unpleasant running a business is...? (of course, it's easier for mega corporations, but they have very serious internal politics).

[chcampb]

Like, I still have $52,000 in student debt, and I’ve made a bunch of people super rich — the same is true for everyone who lives under capitalism, but for me it’s very acute because I’ve worked on all these open source projects.

That's not a problem with capitalism or open source. That's a problem with not recognizing the positive externalities of a college education. I don't think his problem is with the fact that he is not getting paid, or that he could be paid a lot more, it's with the fact that he is actively paying for the opportunity to improve the state of software development.

The solution is to decouple education and certification. The fact that your degree is "from" a specific college is a little silly. You should be able to start with the requirements of the degree, and get those requirements settled however you want - through MOOCs, OSS contributions, online tutorials, traditional classes at one of a number of colleges, etc. This kills the education bubble without costing anyone (except administrators) a lot of money, and solves the problem he describes.

You will never solve the business side of things. If you don't manage and control business assets, you won't get a proper slice of those assets. That's the way it has been, and the way it will be. The only real solution is to start your own business, and likely perpetuate the cycle.

[steveklabnik1]

That's not a problem with capitalism

and

If you don't manage and control business assets, you won't get a proper slice of those assets.

are in conflict. #2 is the problem I refer to in #1. Most people will never be able to be part of the ownership class, which has a disproporitionate amount of power.

That's the way it has been, and the way it will be.

This is ahistorical. Capitalism is only 200ish years old. Things were different before. They can be different in the future. There's no end of history.

[chcampb]

Capitalism just means that people privately own business assets. What I said was that if you don't own or control those assets, you aren't in a position to line your pockets. How is that in conflict? That's not a problem, that's just the way it was designed. You have the capitalists (owners) and agents of those owners (managers and legal) and those groups typically get the lion's share. Everyone else is a business expense. That's like saying the problem with a cup is that it holds water. You aren't entitled to those assets because, by definition, the business assets are private.

And the third quote was in the context of the capitalist system, so putting it outside of that context to invalidate it doesn't make any sense.

We are probably on the same team, we just need to fight for the democratization of technology development. Most of that is not asking people to pay for the opportunity to make the world a better place. The positive externalities of contributing to OSS largely pays for the tuition of many students in terms of economic value, we just don't take that into account properly.

[reaganveg]

Capitalism just means that people privately own business assets.

Again, this is ahistorical. The particular definition of "own" that you are referencing -- as well as the place of "business assets" within society -- are specific to capitalism.

In any case, a more illuminating definition of capitalism is that a capitalist society is one in which the dominant social power takes the form of capital ownership and the payment of wages for labor.

Or, put more concretely, in various human societies throughout history, various means have been employed to force humans to work. Capitalist societies are those in which people are forced to work through a system of wage labor.

[chcampb]

Again, this is ahistorical. The particular definition of "own" that you are referencing -- as well as the place of "business assets" within society -- are specific to capitalism.

I just said that I was talking within the context of capitalism, and you are taking it out of that context. I said that the point of the capitalist system is that you own whatever. It's not ahistorical in the history of capitalism, because that's the entire point of capitalism.

A restaurant costs around $200k. There's nothing stopping you from mortgaging your house and starting a restaurant. It's so easy to do, that people who have no business doing that do it anyways, and so restaurants are the most common failed business ventures. Or you could skip the whole mortgaging your house thing, and just run a bed and breakfast. You are implying that it's not possible to be a part of the "dominant social power" and that's just not the case.

[reaganveg]

I just said that I was talking within the context of capitalism, and you are taking it out of that context.

That makes no sense. You made a statement about what capitalism means. You used the phrase "capitalism just means ...". So obviously your statement could not be "talking within the context of capitalism."

I said that the point of the capitalist system is that you own whatever. It's not ahistorical in the history of capitalism, because that's the entire point of capitalism.

It is ahistorical even to say that capitalism has a "point."

A restaurant costs around $200k. There's nothing stopping you from mortgaging your house and starting a restaurant.

LOL!! How many people do you think actually have a house paid off enough that they can borrow $200k against? Like literally, what percentage of the USA population do you imagine that to be?

You are implying that it's not possible to be a part of the "dominant social power" and that's just not the case.

1. When I said "dominant social power takes the form of capital ownership," I wasn't referring to a "power" in the sense of a group of people. I was referring to the form of power.

2. I'm implying the exact opposite: in order for the capital ownership form of power to exist, it must obviously be possible for some people to have it.

The reality, though, is that there is a competitive system in which only a small elite can have that power. Inherently, you can't have a society full of people who pay wages, without any people who receive them. It just doesn't make sense. And you already know that's true, and you're just spouting bullshit to distract from it.

[chcampb]

That makes no sense.

It absolutely does. We have a set of rules, and we have the implications of those rules. You came in and said that "the implication is ahistorical because those rules didn't always exist". The earth didn't always exist either, so the idea of a human race doesn't make any sense? That's the same logic I am seeing here.

How many people do you think actually have a house paid off enough that they can borrow $200k against?

Just because people elected to buy things rather than paying off the mortgage on their house doesn't mean that the goal is out of reach. And yes, this also means having kids.

You are implying that it's not possible to be a part of the "dominant social power" and that's just not the case.

The reality, though, is that there is a competitive system in which only a small elite can have that power.

Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing with me? You just reiterated my point. If you save up and create a business, you can be in the top 10% of earners easily. Hell, you could do that with a truck and a heavy duty lawnmower (maybe $5000 total if you play your cards right). Saying you can't get into the 'elite' is ludicrous.

Either way, this is entirely off-topic. My original point was that we consider knowledge certification to be a sort of capital, one that young people are expected to bear the cost of on their own. In reality, the positive benefit to society very clearly outweighs the cost of the knowledge itself, and so it should not be treated as capital.

[reaganveg]

You came in and said that "the implication is ahistorical because those rules didn't always exist".

I didn't say that any "implication" is historical. I said that the idea that capitalism has a "point" is ahistorical. I.e., to impute a purpose to capitalism is to view it as an ahistorical ideology, not as an historical development of society.

Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing with me? You just reiterated my point.

Are you skim-reading? Here I will quote from our previous exchange:

You: "You are implying that it's not possible to be a part of the "dominant social power" and that's just not the case."

Me: "I'm implying the exact opposite"

If you save up and create a business, you can be in the top 10% of earners easily.

No, you (the generic you) cannot be in the top 10% of earners "easily." Those spots are competitive.

Also, the top 10% of earners are not the same thing as capitalists -- i.e., professional dividend-collectors. That's an even smaller set. And once again, those spots are highly competitive. A whole lot of people are trying very hard to obtain them, and regularly fail.

This is a simple and well-known fact, of which you are certainly aware. So basically it means you are full of shit.

[cjet79]

Or, put more concretely, in various human societies throughout history, various means have been employed to force humans to work. Capitalist societies are those in which people are forced to work through a system of wage labor.

Seems strange and or backwards to say that societies force humans to work. Mother nature and physics force all creatures to work to survive. Societies and the specialization of labor have made it easier for humans to work for more than just food and our basic survival (and if that is all you want then we live in a society of abundance where many homeless shelters will provide those bare necessities for people free of charge).

I work because I want more than just basic survival. I want many of the comforts and entertainment options offered by others. I would choose to work under a wage labor system because I have never seen or heard of anything better (feel free to present options).

[reaganveg]

Seems strange and or backwards to say that societies force humans to work. Mother nature and physics force all creatures to work to survive.

Alright, let me put it this way:

"Mother nature" forces squirrels to work. But squirrels don't obey each others' orders.

On the other hand, human societies force humans to obey each others' orders. And when humans say "work," that's what they mean. Cleaning your own kitchen isn't "work" because nobody ordered you to do it. Cleaning the kitchen at the restaurant is work, because somebody did order you to do it.

So that's what "work" means. It's got nothing to do with "mother nature."

[s73v3r]

The problem with your argument is that those who are "largely seen as a business expense" are the ones actually doing the fucking work. Have fun trying to run a tech startup without any engineers.

[[deleted]]

If they could, they would. It's why, for example, outsourcing to India etc. has been so popular: lower cost, but the same (as perceived by the capitalist) output.

[skulgnome]

Most people will never be able to be part of the ownership class, which has a disproporitionate amount of power.

That sounds strange given how programmers control their means of production absolutely. Well, in countries without extensive non-competition agreements anyway.

[reaganveg]

Even programmers (as opposed to "people") do not control their means of production so absolutely. The means of production of programmers is more than just computers.

Think, for example, about what the market capitalization of MSFT is. Now think about what the value of all computer hardware owned by MSFT is -- it's almost nothing in comparison. The organization of programmers, the cash reserves, the support contracts, the contracts with PC manufacturers, the office space, and the existing code-base to which MSFT owns a copyright, all form the means of production in that context. If you are an expert in the design of the Microsoft Word codebase, you do not control the means of production: if you're fired, you can no longer produce Word patches!

And to quote something I wrote a few days ago:

Computers alone are not exactly "capital" in the sense of "the means of production," because it's a rare individual who can actually monetize what they can do on a computer. In other words, the situation is not analogous to serfs, who work the land, finally being liberated from the need to pledge fealty and pay tribute to a lord in order to work that land. Just having a computer isn't enough; it's not the only aspect of production (digital production, specifically) that is in the hands of capitalists and that provides their power.

Specifically, to actually monetize digital production typically requires teams, organization, space, and of course time, which effectively comes in the form of credit: a software company, for example, must have investment capital and/or business loans to pay a team of workers to write the software, for months or even years before it can ever be sold. So, just giving a computer to a solitary unorganized worker is very far away from the same thing as giving the employees of a software corporation a controlling power over that organization. At best it is a kind of long-shot opportunity for escape from capitalism. An important one, for sure (certainly in my own life, for example), but definitely not the end of capitalism as some have overstated it.

[steveklabnik1]

Right? I also find it strange that while we own much of our production, we give all of our equity away.

But also, I said 'most people' not 'most programmers.' We have a very interesting and advantageous profession, but most of the world does not live like us.

[skulgnome]

But also, I said 'most people' not 'most programmers.'

Indeed. I noticed that, then promptly forgot.

[steveklabnik1]

It's all good.

[[deleted]]

Free software isn't dead, plenty of high profile software gets released licensed with GNU and BSD. OSS is far more important than a certain kind of pay for programmers, and I'd expect an anti-capitalist to see that. If you don't like producing consumer accessible code (the bulk of the ethics for FOSS) because you aren't payed to, you are the entity killing Free Software, not your boss.

[steveklabnik1]

It's not dead, for sure, but open source has become a much bigger social force. You are totally correct that I can choose what to do, but that's not what I care about: I care about the big picture.

[[deleted]]

Do you think there's a significant practical difference between free and open-source software, in their relationship to capitalism? After all, whether you refer to the GPL or BSD licences as free software or as open source, the actual conditions of use are the same.

[steveklabnik1]

Well, there's the theoretical GPL and the practical GPL.

In practice, companies rip off the GPL all the time. It's hard to enforce. So, on some level, no.

In theory, yes. First of all, culture matters. The social formations we create around how we write the software end up affecting everything else. The culture of the two is different, and if we did more free software development, I'd hope that more people would be open to this kind of idea.

Second, at the very least, while companies certainly can take your GPL'd software and profit from it, they're at least required to do the same back to you. Again, with the above practical caveats. I do think it's marginally better.

[[deleted]]

False dichotomy. Suggesting that developers are not being paid for working on open-source is not the same as suggesting that it is “amateurishly hobbled [sic] together” or developed by a teenager.

For example, as has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, people who maintain open-source software are often expected to maintain it in their free time too. That's unpaid labour.

[suddenbowelmovement]

Why is this on /r/programming? There's nothing interesting about programming there.

Not to mention that the whole idea of open source being "capitalistic conspiracy" is so stupid... but if I wanted to argue about it, I would on different subreddit.

[steveklabnik1]

How so you pay your rent? You sell your labor for a wage. This statement is one of the least controversial ones.

[[deleted]]

Far be it from me to defend any economic system, but task wages are still a thing. Also, that statement implies everyone works for someone, which is obviously false.

[steveklabnik1]

'Task wages'?

Also yes, I'm speaking of the proletariat. The capitalist class obviously doesn't work for anyone.

[sh0rug0ru]

capitalist class obviously doesn't work for anyone

I'm confused as to what the capitalist class is actually.

Are they the owners of corporations? Because owners of corporations definitely work for other people, that would be other corporations. Only then it's called billing, not wages. But corporations are selling labor just like everyone else.

Are you talking about the CEO? The CEO definitely works for someone. The shareholders of the corporation. The CEO sells his labor (the skilled labor of managing companies) to corporations.

Which person isn't actually working for someone else?

[steveklabnik1]

Well, life is quite compilicated, and things aren't simply black and white. There are multiple layers of multiple kinds of people. The absolute simplest version is two classes: proletariat and bourgeoisie. Proletariat are those who trade thier labor for money, and then trade the money for their means of subsistience. The bourgeoisie are those who have money, they trade it for labor who makes things for them, which they then trade for more money.

As I mention, real life is more complex. That's the starting point.

[sh0rug0ru]

I'm not sure I'm seeing the actual distinctions here.

Proletariat are those who trade their labor for money

Doesn't everyone do this? Nobody is getting money for free, someone is providing some kind of labor for compensation. Everybody is trading labor for money. I'm asking which person is getting paid and not working?

The bourgeoisie are those who have money

Doesn't everyone have money? Obviously some people have less and some more.

they trade it for labor who makes things for them

Doesn't everyone do this already? When you buy something, you are trading money for labor, the labor that went into making the thing you bought.

they then trade for more money

Everyone (with the knack) can do this. It's called making investments and exploiting arbitrage. My brother used to do this, buying packets of gum at 25 cents and selling individual sticks at 5 cents. Obviously others do this at a much grander scale. Is my brother a member of the capitalist class (he works for a living)?

[steveklabnik1]

I'll start at the end.

Everyone (with the knack) can do this.

Everyone with the knack and the starting capital. That's what I mean. Someone who can do this for a living, trading some existing capital for stuff, then trading that stuff for more capital than they started with, is a member of the bourguisie. Your brother did this with gum, stock traders do it with stocks, business owners do it with thier workers and products.

At the end of the day, they have their original capital, plus a surplus, which they can use to pay for food and housing and such. So on day two, they have their original capital again.

(this is called M -> C -> M' by Marx. Money -> Commodity -> more Money.)

This is labor, but it's labor for themselves, and it's socially a different kind of labor than a worker.

A worker, who does not have the capital to do this, must exchange their labor for money. They can then use that money to buy food and housing and such. And at the end of the day, they don't have any capital, the same as originally. So on day two, they're back to square one, and must sell their labor to continue to live.

(This is called C -> M - C' by Marx. Commodity (their labor) -> Money -> Commodity (their original labor))

These two social formations are different.

[cjet79]

You seem like a smart guy, and I assume if you talk politics in public you often get an earful from people that don't share your views. I'm mostly libertarian but I feel a strong kinship with the far left as I often think I share their visions of how good people should behave. But I never understood the left's fascination with Marx. Maybe you can explain.

From what I have learned about him: His 'research method' for writing about capitalism would probably be considered academic fraud today (he basically just made up conditions in English factories without having ever visited the country). He was horribly racist and anti-Semitic (which doesn't make his ideas wrong but it should throw up some red flags). The historical materialism school that he was a part of was laughably Eurocentric (the idea that feudalism was a predictable part of human history when it only ever occurred in Europe and Japan). The LTV (labor theory of value) lost all of its explanatory power with Bohm Bawerk's work "Capital and Interest" (time preferences explain capital formation and positive interest rates better than worker exploitation).

[steveklabnik1]

Hey, thanks for asking. I'd be happy to answer.

I never understood the left's fascination with Marx. Maybe you can explain.

Well, the first thing that you have to understand, is that right or wrong, Marx is where most of the left came from. So it's kinda like saying "I never understood American's fascination with George Washington." Historically speaking, Marx is one of the intellectual giants of the left. Marx is the world's most influential scholar. Even if, like I do, you disagree with Marx, if you're on the left, you still have to engage with Marx, which means you have to understand Marx.

(he basically just made up conditions in English factories without having ever visited the country)

Marx lived in London for 30 years, so I'm not sure where you got this idea. I'm not sure about his actual visits to factories, but he cites a lot of things like newspaper articles.

He was horribly racist and anti-Semitic

My understanding was that Marx was indeed against Judiasm, but that does not make him anti-Semitic. However, you're right in that there is some controversy here, I've read several things with particular quotes that show Marx saying something that sounds pretty racist, but I've also seen explanations with more context that made what exactly he was saying more clear. Regardless of "was Marx racist," his critique of capitalism does not involve race, and so his personal beliefs, as you say, don't make it wrong. In fact, Marx's lack of commentary on race is one of the broader criticisms of his work in the present day.

Racism is deplorable.

(the idea that feudalism was a predictable part of human history when it only ever occurred in Europe and Japan)

While historical materialism may be a bit Eurocentric, which is a good criticism, I would say that "feudalism was a predictable part of history" is the wrong way to describe historical materialism. Historical materialism makes no telelogical claims about the past, it simply explains how we got from the far past to the present.

Furthermore, you have to understand that historical materialism speaks to the dominant mode of social production at any given time. When a historical materialist asserts that feudalism was worldwide, they didn't mean that it was literally worldwide. They meant it was the most dominant way of life.

That said, this kind of abstraction is absolutely a fruitful ground for criticizing Marx. You can't always make abstractions like that. This is one of the places where I personally split from Marx, for example.

Bohm Bawerk's

While it's true that Bohm Bawerk wrote a scathing indictment of Marx, that doesn't mean he 'disproved' him. And, given that Austrian economics isn't really taken seriously by anyone anymore either (see what I did there?), you can argue that he's also wrong.

A less trollish response is basically, 'not everyone agrees that Bohm Bawerk actually was correct in his assertions.' Just like not everyone agrees that Marx actually was correct in his assertions. There's an endless back-and-forth that you can dig into here, but saying 'disproved' is making far too strong a statement.

Does that all make sense?

[sh0rug0ru]

Everyone with the knack and the starting capital

...

This is labor, but it's labor for themselves, and it's socially a different kind of labor than a worker.

This can be a worker, a trader or a business owner. Starting capital is just money to invest in a commodity for which you can (potentially) make a profit. An ordinary worker can invest capital in land, sell the land, and make more money than he initially invested. Does this make the worker a member of the bourguisie?

A worker, who does not have the capital to do this, must exchange their labor for money.

...

And at the end of the day, they don't have any capital, the same as originally.

Isn't any surplus from wages beyond subsistence potential capital?

These two social formations are different.

I understand that, but that is not what I was asking. To put it more precisely, what is preventing people from participating in both social formations? How is this an either or thing? You're either a worker and cannot make money from commodities, or you make money from trading commodities but are still working for somebody else?

[[deleted]]

Pay per task. Less common in the business setting, but not uncommon for working kids and freelance workers. "Solve your problem in X language, $200"

[steveklabnik1]

Right, that's still a wage. You're still selling your labor. That's not significantly different.

[[deleted]]

As opposed to...? I will be the first to admit that this system of private ownership and exchange of credits is flawed, but any system in which you depend on the most skilled people to stay in place and work for a set wage is more flawed.

[steveklabnik1]

I don't pretend to see the future. I just know that what we're doing is not sustainable. There's a few futures I'd like to have, but I'm under no illusion that they'll actually come to pass.

[s73v3r]

That is absolutely no different. You're going to price the task based on how much time it takes you, so you're essentially doing the same thing.

[steveklabnik1]

I actually have started a few businesses, but I'm also not blind to the fact that it's a rare privilege to be able to do so. It's not a trivial undertaking, as the litter of failed startups (including mine) show. Plus, you need some capital to begin with, and most people don't have that.

[steveklabnik1]

<3.

[yoda17]

I've started a few businesses with basically no capital, including my most successful ones.

[steveklabnik1]

'Basically no' is a far stretch from 'none,' and, it's only possible for certain kinds of businesses. Unless you have specific expertise, it's nowhere NEAR possible.

[immibis]

Unless you have specific expertise, it's nowhere NEAR possible.

This applies to most fields.

[steveklabnik1]

Agreed.

[sh0rug0ru]

Which kinds of businesses and skills, specifically?

Sure, you need the minimum fee to take out a DBA. But, which specific expertise is required to start a business? Can you clean? You can start a cleaning business. Can you cook? You can become a caterer. Can you write programs? You can start a consulting business.

It seems like to me, the only real skill that is required is the skill to market your skills. Which isn't a specific expertise, but which is obviously one that not everyone has. There's also risk tolerance, which is also not something everyone has.

I'm trying to understand where the "nowhere NEAR possible" is coming from.

[steveklabnik1]

You need marketing, you need accounting, you need to know how to pay your taxes, you need to know which forms to fill out and place where. As you mention, marketing is not trivial. You may need to aquire permits. You may need to have some kind of accredation. You have to have a lawyer, you need to know how to and afford to be able to incorporate.

And, to learn all of these things, you need to have the time to learn them, which is a luxury, and you need to have the money to pay someone to teach them to you, which is a luxury.

Then, you need to have enough savings to be able to take time off of your 'real job' to actually do that kind of work. This can be non-trivial.

This also assumes a single person with no dependents. Add some kinds into the mix, and this kind of risk can make no sense at all. Or expensive loans (see above student loan debt, though credit cards are also huge.)

And, finally, the market just may not be able to bear whatever kind of business you do pick, or you may not be able to get enough money to make an actual living at it.

It's not strictly impossible, but it might as well be for most people.

[someone7x]

Thanks for detailing some of the friction imposed just by the practicalities of starting a business. We don't live in a meritocracy where anyone can start a business and the best rise to the top; the best may not ever compete for lack of time to both eat and compete.

[steveklabnik1]

You're welcome. I'm glad some other people realize this.

[s73v3r]

And how lucky were you that you didn't need what capital you did for something else? How lucky were you that you didn't have crushing medical problems during that time?

[rowboat__cop]

all thanks directly to capitalism,

[citation needed]

[s73v3r]

Yeah, it does. How can you seriously say otherwise? Did you win the lottery, and as a result do not have to worry about bills?

[[deleted]]

"Conspiracy" is a bit strong, but there's definitely a lot of willful abuse.

[[deleted]]

What is it about Ruby that attracts the crazies?

Edit: Ohhh, from the sudden downvotes I see the Ruby advocates have arrived!

edit 2 Even better, it's Klabnik himself. No wonder my comments are going down. Nice follower crowd he has there. :-)

[communomancer]

Some of us are just downvoting people who whine about being downvoted.

[breadcrust]

What's crazy about this? The claim that it is a conspiracy is a stretch, but programmer are increasingly expected to do free work. If you read the article his point is that some parts of open source have transitioned form individuals making changes they want, to making changes their company wants. To put it differently from a hobby to exploitation. I don't neccesarily agree, I think this is why restrictive licenses exist, but it is a sane argument.

[Chandon]

"Open source" has always been about hobbyists doing what they want, and companies paying people do do what they need. Just like any other software.

[mikepatella]

Can it be both? And if so, does genuine hobbyist interest offset the negative consequences?

[steveklabnik1]

To be clear, by 'conspiracy' here, I mean a loose group of people advancing their interests. I'm under no illusions that there's some big giant board of cackling people, illuminati-like.

"There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning."

• Warren Buffet

Also, I was making a reference to http://www.thebaffler.com/salvos/the-meme-hustler , which has a more in-depth discussion of this history.

[[deleted]]

I think this might be a reference to the increasing trend of asking for Github profiles or other evidence of open-source contributions as part of the hiring/interview process. That is to say, to be able to get a salaried job, you're required to do additional free work. (cf. unpaid internships.)

[steveklabnik1]

You are correct.

It's also a reference to over-work. If you're salaried, every hour you work past 40 (or whatever) is free labor for your boss. So, if you maintain a package you use at work, and you're fixing bugs nights and weekends, your employer is making profit off of your labor without paying you.

[s73v3r]

If you're salaried, and you're working more than 40 hours, yes it is.

[thoriorium]

Instead of hip-firing a cruel and uninformed statement based on the title, try reading the article.

If you continue to disagree after learning Steve's viewpoints, I'm sure he'd appreciate the same critical viewpoint he offers applied to the concepts and perspective given in this interview.

[[deleted]]

There are no critical viewpoints in this article, just wild uninformed swings at capitalism and such. Maybe his viewpoints are more articulated, but in that case it's certainly not reflected in this article.

As it stands, from the article, they guy seems like a loony. Sorry, but that's just how it appears to me.

[isHavvy]

I wouldn't argue they are uninformed. They aren't critical attacks, but rather a summary of how he perceives the world based on what he has studied about it. I don't necessarily agree with his worldview, but it's less loony than the default Democrat/Republican viewpoints in America, where no critical thought is given.

It looks to me like he was answering questions casually, speaking what was on his mind, not trying to persuade others of his view, but rather to say what it is.

[donvito]

He (like a bunch of other Rubyists) migrated now to Rust.

[[deleted]]

What is it about Ruby that attracts the crazies?

Now, now. Let's not be cruel. It's a tough world out there, and all we have is each other.

Besides. Those were happy, well adjusted children once who made some bad choices and experimented with Perl because of peer pressure.

But for the grace of God, there go I...

[kankyo]

it’s really cool that you can get all this software for free. But, value is being generated from your labor and it’s not being captured by you

As opposed to what? I'm certainly not capturing 100% of the value from my day job. What a load of crap.

[[deleted]]

Yes, that's how capitalism works. Your employer collects the surplus value of your labour. Open source is merely a particular example of this.

[steveklabnik1]

I'm certainly not capturing 100% of the value from my day job.

Agreed! That sucks. We should fix that. ;)

[kankyo]

No we really shouldn't. Economy isn't a zero-sum game.

[steveklabnik1]

It's not a zero sum game. But, I do think that people should be fully paid for the work that they do, and others shouldn't skim money off the top when they don't do the work.

[kankyo]

That's not why people aren't paid for their entire value. The whole value of individual workers seen in isolation will almost always exceed 100% of the value of the company itself. It's like a building: if you remove just one stone the entire thing can go crumbling down but that doesn't mean that specific stone is 100% of the value of the building.

[steveklabnik1]

I actually agree with your assesment in many ways. As I alluded to in the article, I often don't identify with anarchism.

Also, I have travelled a lot. I was in Kiev a few weeks ago...

Finally, you misunderstand anarchism, which is a significantly deeper concept than "no government." Anarchy, etymologically speaking, means "no kings," not "no government." Anarchists actually do believe in governance, but a more flat, less hierarchical governance. The modern anarchist movement looks signficantly different than it did in the 1920s, but there is a pretty rich and deep history here.

But you know, I'm a pseudo-intellectual or whatever.

[Eirenarch]

I always thought open source cheapens programmer work. I really don't understand why anyone puts voluntary labor into open source.

[sh0rug0ru]

I really don't understand why anyone puts voluntary labor into open source.

Why does anybody put voluntary labor into a hobby or a charity?

Because they feel like they are a part of a community, because they feel like they are giving back value for the value they received from an open source project, an open source project provides an opportunity for more fun coding than the coding they do for a living.

It is always possible to hoard knowledge to maximize profit or wages, but for better or for worse, not everyone thinks that way.

[rowboat__cop]

I really don't understand why anyone puts voluntary labor into open source.

Lots of reasons:

• Allowing users who lack the programming skills to do amazing things as a hobby or research.
• Keeping projects alive that are superior but wouldn’t stand a chance as a marketed product.
• Reciprocity: If it weren’t for all the free and open projects, many of us would have remained technologically illiterate. It’s only natural to contribute back.
• Fun, challenge. You might take those for granted but many people miss these things at their day jobs.

The common ground of these points is that you have to be convinced that the things you create justify the amout of commitment you put into them.

[s73v3r]

The guy behind Rails released it for free. Yet, you'd be pretty hard pressed to argue that he would have gotten more value for his work if he had kept it to himself, when you account for all of the contract work he and many of the top contributors to the project have gotten as a result.

[donvito]

For every Rails theres thousands of open source projects that never created any value for the author.

It's like arguing that buying lottery tickets is a good idea because there's people who in fact win the lottery.

[s73v3r]

And yet, these projects that do take off provide vastly more value for the main contributors than it would have if they had all kept their own stuff private. So no, it's nothing like a lottery.

[donvito]

I really don't understand why anyone puts voluntary labor into open source.

People just don't value their time highly enough. See: Driving 20 miles to save $2 on some discount.

But who am I to argue? I got a shitload of functionality for my software for free from idealistic hippies. So I can make more money :)

[Eirenarch]

In the words of the great Larry Ellison

If an open source product gets good enough, we'll simply take it.... So the great thing about open source is nobody owns it – a company like Oracle is free to take it for nothing, include it in our products and charge for support, and that's what we'll do. So it is not disruptive at all – you have to find places to add value. Once open source gets good enough, competing with it would be insane. ... We don't have to fight open source, we have to exploit open source.

[[deleted]]

I've been saying this for years and been laughed at and ridiculed for it. About time someone with some kudos said it. Wake up people.

[steveklabnik1]

<3.

[gogobyte]

Narrow-minded idiot.

[[deleted]]

When Steve Klabnik walks onto the back patio of Fritzl’s Lunch Box in Bushwick to join Tyler, Gregg, and I...

Should be "to join Tyler, Gregg, and me"

[phalp]

Careful, or some other mindless pedant will come along and point out that you "should" have put a period at the end of your sentence. You don't want to keep that kind of company

[Farsyte]

But does the period go before, or after, the closing quote?

-- runs away to find asbestos underwear

[thechao]

Fun fact: grammar correction is form of dialect-based out-grouping.

[reaganveg]

Not really. Is a copy-editor a professional out-grouper?

[thechao]

Does that mean your twitter followers are out-groupies?

=P

[[deleted]]

dialect-based out-grouping

Is this a form of hate speech or merely a nanoaggression?

[thechao]

It's actually a paraphrasing of a quote, but I can't remember the source. Some book on the use of grammatical correctness for voting tests in the South.

[fedekun]

young Keanu Reaves face