Hacker News Reader

Comment by poulpy123 | Hacker News Reader

I get that it can be a source of stress for the dev, but knowing if a project is still alive is needed before investing too much time in it

View on HN

I agree with you. That being said, I also suspect there are a lot of rude and entitled people who treat maintainers poorly. Here are my thoughts:

1) Be polite - Open Source developers and maintainers are incredibly generous, and they should be treated with respect.

2) Treat maintainers with respect - For example, instead of asking if something is dead, try writing something like "Are you still working on this project? Would types of issues will you fix? Security bugs? Serious bugs? What else?"

3) Give back - If you depend on a project, ask the maintainer if there is anything you can do to help?

4) Consider giving money to the maintainer as a thank you. If you really like a project or really depend on it, you should probably give the maintainer some money. There are two reasons for this. First, it shows you appreciate their work. Second, it encourages them to keep on supporting the project.

5) Let maintainers know that you appreciate their work. Also, let them know what you like about it.

One thing I think a lot of people are not thinking about is real people work on open source software and these people have limitations, desires, likes, etc. They are not meat bags which create software because users demand it or feel they are entitled to it.

Why? It's either useful or it's not, and if it is and it's open source you can take it and use it or enhance it as you like.

If your use of open-source code is predicated on the expectation that someone else will always be there to take care of it, then you're just a freeloader.

It really depends what ecosystem you are in. For example, the nodejs/npm ecosystem is on a never-ending cycle of package upgrades. If a maintainer is not maintaining a package, it will eventually have to be replaced for one of the following reasons:

1) One of the package's dependencies has a breaking change which breaks the package

2) One of the package's dependencies has a security bug. The dependent package cannot be upgraded to a fixed version because the dependent package's fixed version has a breaking change which breaks the original package.

Basically, ecosystems which do not have strong backwards compatibility tend to require packages/libraries/creates/assemblies/DLLs to be maintained forever.

That seems like a really good reason not to use that ecosystem. It's not the fault or the problem of the person who created the open-source project. If you choose to use open source code in a system like that, then that's what you've chosen.

> Why? It's either useful or it's not

the maintenance is not a small part of the usability of a software

> it's open source you can take it and use it or enhance it as you like.

No, I need to have the ability and the time to do so

> then you're just a freeloader.

I don't remember the part in the free software licence that doesn't allow me to chose to use or not use a specific software or a clause that force me to take over it's development in case the original dev abandon it

Reply on news.ycombinator.com