> it’s called professional accountability
Professional does for money, by definition. That doesn’t apply for most open source. RedHat employee contributing to Linux kernel is an exception, not a rule.
Professional does for money, by definition. That doesn’t apply for most open source. RedHat employee contributing to Linux kernel is an exception, not a rule.
Do you have any evidence to back up this seemingly wildly speculative assertion?
And, even if it were true, "while at their paid jobs" doesn't mean at all they're getting paid as developers at all, let alone as developers on those projects that they are contributing to.
> By studying the Linux Kernel, we document that commercial participation outweighs volunteer participation substantially
https://journals.aom.org/doi/abs/10.5465/AMPROC.2023.17240ab...
Also, empirically, many of the most popular open source projects are published by commercial companies, who hire developers to maintain them. If you review the commit history for these projects, you will see that many of them are, unsurprisingly, employees.
https://airtable.com/appiS6H4nkeXdyO89/shrATIy7RIOheo3gF/tbl...
There is inevitable overlap of commercial activity with popular open source software. Either it was a commercial piece of software to begin with, or because it is popular, it now has commercial value and garners commercial attention. Something like React falls into the former, and something like Linux falls into the latter.
There's a lot of community open source software too, but it trends towards smaller hobby projects with few users.
Second, some proof would be nice. I live in .net/nugget ecosystem and other than libraries backed by MS, most popular projects are not (at least ones I know of).
I think it's okay if a hobby project is unsuitable or unreliable for important tasks. They should also not be used in critical infrastructure or commercial products.