I've been lucky enough to be able to spend my entire software engineering career so far working on software that end users use and pay directly for. I often say that I really only want to work on software that makes money because it does an excellent job of solving a problem for its users, and that's the only reason they use it.
When you have other financial relationships and monetization strategies in the mix -- advertising, monetization of user data, virtual currencies and loot boxes, etc. -- the incentive structure is such that you have to focus on goals other than "make software that our users love".
Of course, it's probably not a coincidence that I haven't spent my software engineering career working for high growth startups or big companies. But that's a plus too. I really enjoy working at a company with 10-20 people making a product that people love, a completely straightforward business model (users buy our software), no VC money, and no ambitions to grow like crazy or get huge.
I don’t understand the beef the author has with Stallman. Should GNU C NOT have a manual? It should just be undocumented folklore? Of all the things to complain about, someone actually writing done how something works should be commended.
What I took away from that passage was the juxtaposition of "don't use anything but free software; here's a manual for a C compiler" was seen as somewhat lacking with regards to "lovability."
That said, I love a good language reference. And I've gotta say, documentation is hard and the hardest thing I've found in learning zig is that the language is moving fast -- it's really hard to make good documentation for a moving target. So swiping at RMS for putting out an improved manual rings a little hollow to me.
I don't know about that. FSF seems to be entirely calcified and I haven't been a fan of much of their newer work. Trying to move that organization is a fool's errand. You're doing the right thing by starting anew and defining your own direction to grow in.
I think this comes off a bit arrogant and narrow minded which is a bit disappointing coming from the VP of community.
There are many other projects which the FSF provides support for to further the goal of spreading free software and picking at one for presenting work they're proud of strikes contrast with the purpose of the conference.
Yeah, I don't think I really made my point well. Mudslinging sucks. "We're not like those guys because they're doing this shit thing and we're doing this awesome thing" is 100% suckier than saying "We're doing this awesome thing." It's kayfabe in an article that literally complains about kayfabe. Feuds make good drama, but bad ecosystems. I think Andy learned that lesson saying (IMO) true things about the V language. Only commenting here because I love zig and want it to be awesome.
If you want to see it as a keyfabe then fine, but from my perspective the ones that want to sell you an idea by only saying feel-good things, are marketing departments. I've experienced first hand[1] how shitty is the relationship between big tech and open source is, and I hold the FSF partially responsible for it. Had it done a better job at its stated mission[2], maybe things would be better today.
And what is SYCL if not marketing? It's a conference which sells the idea that we can make better software for the end user which is marketing just without the freedom aspect of a user being able to modify and study software.
What should the FSF have done to do a better job? It's easy to say that some entity hasn't done enough without being in the same position and without providing an alternative solution.
It's hard to provide an alternate solution if the moment you try to start something people tell you that it's all just marketing :^)
We at the Zig Software Foundation for now are doing a reasonably good job at supporting our FOSS project by paying our contributors and by being as transparent as we can with the public (eg we're a 501(c)(3) non profit organization).
I don't see how the Zig Software Foundation is related to SYCL not mainly marketing a concept.
Note, there's nothing wrong with marketing and providing courses (something which the FSF also provides), it's just the act of promoting it while complaining about another organization not having "done enough" that has done much more within this space over the years.
When you have other financial relationships and monetization strategies in the mix -- advertising, monetization of user data, virtual currencies and loot boxes, etc. -- the incentive structure is such that you have to focus on goals other than "make software that our users love".
Of course, it's probably not a coincidence that I haven't spent my software engineering career working for high growth startups or big companies. But that's a plus too. I really enjoy working at a company with 10-20 people making a product that people love, a completely straightforward business model (users buy our software), no VC money, and no ambitions to grow like crazy or get huge.