Hacker News Reader

> Our tools suck because...

Oh, quite the opposite I'd say. Because we are software developers, and we can fix our problems with software, we accumulated quite a rich toolbox to solve our problems better. We're quick to dismiss our ecosystem (everything sucks/is broken), I tend to enjoy such conversations as well, and sure, there are plenty of broken/unfinished things out there, but in all honesty: what other subculture has accomplished such complex projects as the Linux kernel or the GNU toolchain, and gave it away for free? Because a lot of people know that we all are better off sharing our tools, and copying is essentially free? Isn't the brokenness often there just because we went too far, too fast?

I think looking somewhere else for a side project is a good idea, exactly because our own problem space is saturated with good (enough) tools, and deeply explored. And even if something is missing, someone's itch is bad enough so they just scratch it themselves and make it open source. But oh boy, other domain's tools and workflows suck. And often, they don't have the skills to fix this themselves, so that's where we can be helpful with software.

> Linux kernel

Wouldn't it actually be a good example of "whatever big companies see fit to subsidize in their open source programs"?

True, at least for modern kernel development. But I'm also not really arguing against that, I'm arguing against the notion that this model of development (open source combined with corporate sponsorship) is responsible for a lack of resources which causes our tools to suck. Or even that our tools suck in the first place, taking into account the complexity and non-linearity of the systems we build. Our tools work really well, considering, and it might even be the reason why software eats the world right now.

Many companies are happy to pay for IntelliJ, Docker, and GitHub. I think it depends on which tools you choose to build.

GitHub is a good example of a software development tool that is a cloud service instead of a local program, and thus has an easy and effective monetization strategy. Still, though, the vast majority use it for free.

IntelliJ and Docker give most of their products away for free. Why? Probably mostly because there is no good solution to licensing local software. They rely on the patronage of a relative few corporations, who have legal departments that will enforce the licensing rules on their behalf to avoid legal risk. Unfortunately that means that their business is an enterprise licensing business which is difficult to break into. Success in enterprise licensing is less about product quality and more about sales. That's not the kind of business I'd like to be in.

Is there a market to sell these to funded startups or do most of them cut corners here too?

IntelliJ is a JetBrains product - I'd be interested in what their revenue breakdown is between "corporate" and "individual" licenses, but I suspect that there are more individuals paying for it than you'd think.

I know I have an active subscription still for PyCharm, even though I've not used it personally since moving to vim full-time a couple of years ago. It's a great product, and I find it extremely useful when teaching people new to Python - the autocomplete is excellent, and there are visualization tools that I've not found a good replacement for.

JetBrains pricing is actually a great case study in price segmentation for enterprise software.

First, they charge different prices for an "individual" licenses vs. an "organizational" licenses. Why? Because businesses have larger checkbooks.

PyCharm: there's a free Community version and a paid Professional version. Python is the most common beginner teaching language, so give the basic stuff away for free. Once you get into "pro" stuff -- sci stuff, web dev, DB stuff -- that's when there's a budget and so people are willing to pay.

WebStorm: Javascript is a mess of an ecosystem and there's tons of free tools out there so no point in JetBrains giving away a free version. However, once you value your productivity and want something that Just Works out of the box with reasonable defaults, that's when a webstorm license becomes something you pay for. Besides, every startup does some form of web dev these days, so larger market.

IntelliJ: Java used to be the go-to language for learning object-oriented coding, so like python, offer a free community edition. Once you dive into Spring stuff, well, you're going there because you have a boss and the boss has budget.

I'm sure there's an argument where, on a personal level, releasing software open source can lead to financial gain by opening up opportunities to new jobs, fame, etc. It's good resume material, especially if the scope is smaller.

For an extreme case, it worked for Linus

There's also the infamous Brew developer and Google's interview for a counterexample. But that's more of a devil's advocate thing.

I think your point still stands, but instead of Linus I'd use the more relevant Mike Perham and his Sidekiq tool: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12925449

Our tools suck because there is no strong profit motive to produce improved tools.

Is it? From my experienced with tools from other industries where there is no subsidization of FOSS alternatives, I wouldn't say they suck any less, would you?

I don't think that's true. I am very willing to pay for small tools. Just make sure buying and deploying is easy and quick. Spending double digit amounts on a tool is a total no-brainer in my company.