[wildmanx]

> I totally get where they are coming from but it does make it sound like unsupported software.

All software is "unsupported software" unless explicitly stated otherwise. Just because some software has its software published under an open source license does not make it magically "supported". Not more than any proprietary software.

If you want support, pay for it. You can already be glad that somebody published the source code under a somewhat permissive license (i.e. not just an illegal leak). They have their reasons. Don't just assume a "support for free model", since that assumption is most certainly incorrect.

The reason that people support their open source projects _anyway_, and _for free_ is a mix of (1) self-interest, since I want my software to not have bugs, so of course I fix reported bugs, otherwise I may run into them myself, (2) fun, since it's just fun to tinker with things, (3) business interest, since showing support makes me look good to potential customers and (4) misconceptions on the author's side, thinking they have an obligation, fueled by threads like these.

Reasons (1)-(3) are fine. Reason (4) is terrible and I wish it would stop.

[ricardobeat]

By “unsupported software” I don’t think he means any kind of support for his particular use of the software, but simply the pace of development - keeping up with system API evolution, dependencies, fixing bugs in the original code.

Software rots, and you generally don’t want to adopt a project that is not having basic maintenance being done.

[wildmanx]

It's your right to as a user choose projects based on that criterion. It sounds reasonable to me.

But it's not your right to demand anything from a project, including demanding that they do basic maintenance or disclose whether they are going to do it. Maybe they don't even know, or maybe they change their mind lots of times ever year or every day. If you don't get a promise of this happening, neither assume anything nor start to demand it.

(Even if you get a promise, if it's some individual writing something on the net, it's not worth much. If they fail doing it despite the promise, they are being idiots, which they are free to be, and you are free to ignore them going forward or be angry.)

The attitude that published open source software is generally expected to be supported with basic maintenance is bad. It burns out creators who also believe in this myth and it creates an atmosphere that fosters this and in the end, less software is placed under open source licenses because people feel that that would include some obligation after. It does not. Just because you find some piece of code on the internet does not entitle you to anything.

[ricardobeat]

I’ve been publishing and contributing to open source software for 15+ years and have never experienced that attitude. Granted, none of my stuff reached huge success, but they are out there; I’ve also been close to a few mainstream projects, and from my POV this seems exaggerated. If anything, scaremongering comments like yours are what might stop people from publishing more.

It’s also pretty straightforward to disable issues in GitHub and ignore all the noise.

[wildmanx]

Then how do you explain the original article that we are discussing here? He's just imagining the problems that he is addressing in there?

Just look around this thread, you can find the described attitude even here.

[yawaramin]

It boils down to the same thing. Support can be specific for a business need or for just general maintenance and bitrot prevention.