Ask HN: How do developers in low-wage countries view Open Source?
Open source libraries help us developers to write bigger systems faster, but the availability of open source also reduces the possibility to build and sell own libraries.
I am a developer in a low-wage country, I make use of Open Source, I mostly develop large systems, but I also develop libraries for other programmers.
How do I view Open Source? I think it's a net good. It saves a lot of time, leads to systems with better code quality, and allows me to develop faster.
I'm pretty diligent about following the licenses of the things I use, so I sleep well knowing I'm doing exactly what the original author wants me to do.
I'm not sure that my opinions have much to do with being in a low wage country. That would not seem to be part of my view either way.
Granted it was also a different time (late 1990s) but Open Source actually allowed me to get interested and have a career in programming.
I could install Linux, have access to good programming tools and literally study the source code. I would buy magazines with CDs packed with OSS ready to use, study and play with. I would probably never be able to afford closed source tools, manuals, etc.
> PayDevs is Monetization as a Service for #OSS #libraries. We provide a closed registry for #javascript and collect money for #maintainers.
So is your business plan to undermine open source?
* Microsoft is still very dominant, people use pirated windows on PCs, and in a corporate setting MS tech stacks are very popular. Fewer people can afford MacBooks.
* Linux and free software ideology is not as popular. People want to get buy, not join a revolution.
* In many of these places there is a master-apprentice attitude toward learning. This is pretty much the opposite of the sharing ethos of Open Source. Why would you share your knowledge and software for free when you can charge people?
Perhaps, but so do other paid libraries, so in a way, you're competing all the same but you actually have to be good instead of just existing at a lower price point.
Maybe from the developer side, it can be seen as something of a luxury - like, how nice that you can afford to spend coding time on projects that make no money. If you live in poverty, your time is better spent on jobs that get you income. I'm guessing they are grateful for FOSS being available, and don't have a negative perception of it, but perhaps there is a lot of talent out there who feels unable to spend time contributing to FOSS.
Of course I'm generalising, but as someone in the 3rd world I'd only imagine this being different in literal code sweatshops.
Today, you have to build a bigger useful library, start a company around it, advertise, and sell it as a product - which is a big monetary investment. Starting with a small useful library and slowly receiving some money could help developers to get more interested in developing libraries - especially when young or living in low-wage countries.
Want the better tool? I sell the patches and maintenance, and after some prudential time, I release it into the wild.
Not exactly the Red Hat method but it's a method for sure.
In a recent project I used standard libraries to connect IMAP, SMTP and web scraping. Nothing interesting. Just connecting tubes and a regular expression in the middle. And a for loop, to repeat it. Nothing interesting, but it's enough to be the computer wizard.