[hobofan]

> If your free software project suddenly gets popular, you gain resources: testers, developers and people willing to pitch in.

I wouldn't even say that this is true. If your free software project get's popular you get: Users that want their feautures built and don't want to build it themselves; PRs that need to be reviewed; Co-maintainers that need to be communicated with; etc.

Yes, it also can have upsides, but depending on the project and it's surrounding ecosystem (and culture), it can easily be more demanding that rewarding.

[silvestrov]

You also get users which don't understand a thing and who send you tons of emails and want A++ personal support.

Sell the same service for $$$ money and suddenly the users (as a group) are a much nicer bunch.

Offering "Free Software" is sometimes like working in retail.

[svachalek]

I've seen this exact effect multiple times. It's really rather amazing, that no one expects as much as someone who's paid absolutely nothing for it. Kind of a divide by zero = infinity in the human firmware or something.

[jdrc]

Let's agree that it's a global tendency of humans to take advantage of other humans who have shown that they are willing to accept it.

[BlueTemplar]

Free software never meant free support, not even for the financial burden of providing source code. (Also why "libre software" is a better term.)

[aseipp]

Go tell that to the people who shit all over the emails and bug trackers of free software developers. The rest of us are well aware.

[BlueTemplar]

I mean the solution to that predates personal computers...

https://kk.org/ct2/heinleins-fan-mail-solution/

[aseipp]

The original complaint was "demanding and petty users flood you and take up your time, through the same channels your good users do", and your solution seems to be "just go ahead and let them take up your time"? What, is Heinlein's Ghost going to pat me on the back if I do? The reality is there is no real "solution" to this problem; there is no solution to "people are annoying." The very premise is completely ill-formed and only possible in a framework that views all human interaction and behavior as completely mechanical.

It's not all bad, though, working on free/libre software, and I'd be remiss to not mention that. Maybe I'm letting it hit too close to home and you're just saying it in jest. But anyone here pretending that you can "solve" these kinds of issues so easily are deluding themselves and telling on themselves at the same time, in my opinion.

[BlueTemplar]

> your solution seems to be "just go ahead and let them take up your time"?

How did you get this from my link ?? I'm suggesting pre-made answers here to the most typical "time-wasters"...

[aetherson]

You get both the demanding users and the giving users, but the point is, the demanding users don't actually cost your open source repo anything. When it's a website, every user is money out of your pocket.

[jandrewrogers]

Demanding users absolutely do cost something -- time and attention at a minimum. Some users will go to great lengths to try to force you to engage with them. An open source repo does not prevent this either in theory or practice.

[aetherson]

They actually don't. You can just ignore them. I get that people find them unpleasant. But "finding somebody unpleasant" is different from "someone costs you money."

[aseipp]

No you can't, because they report bugs in the same place that all the other people do, they create spam accounts, they concern troll, they divert conversations onto their pet issues, they do everything people have done to irritate other people on the internet for ages. It's very well understood behavior to anyone who has used an internet forum in the past 20 years and also obvious there is no magical way to filter this all out. You're running the project or part of the maintainer team, YOU have to separate the wheat from the chaff, no magical algorithm or "trick" is going to do it for you.

This is before the fun part where, depending on the level of "personality" you're dealing with, you might end up getting a fun weirdo who becomes obsessed with you for a little while and makes life miserable for everyone involved. I know one person who was stalked on GitHub (before they let you ban people from interacting with you, a fairly recent feature) and this person would comment on literally EVERYTHING they did, but only in a "nice" and "helpful" tone. You can't tune that shit out so easily, I'm afraid.

To be fair you also get some lesser psychopaths'; the angry guy who reported his bugs, replied and demanded to be replied to via Lisp programs in quoted code blocks was a more memorable one.

[pdonis]

> because they report bugs in the same place that all the other people do, they create spam accounts, they concern troll, they divert conversations onto their pet issues, they do everything people have done to irritate other people on the internet for ages.

What this is saying that if your "free software project" includes anything more than providing the source code for free online--in other words, if it includes things like a bug tracker, a discussion forum, etc., that you are actually paying attention to--then it's not just a "free software project" any more, it's more like a "free website", and has many of the same issues people are discussing here relative to the latter. And the solution would be much the same: your time and effort isn't free, so if you're giving it to the project, the project shouldn't be free; you should charge for it.

[crummy]

Can you give me some examples of what you'd consider to be free software projects?

[compiler-guy]

Love to see your email filter that separates messages from helpful users from demanding users.

If you can't automate this step, you have to read the insults, and pleading, and jerk-faced comments from the demanding users. Which takes time and energy.

[aetherson]

My filter is my brain. I just... don't interact with people who don't seem worth interacting with.

And, look, that's not perfect and I'm not saying that it's not unpleasant. I'm saying that it's materially different from every person who uses your service costing you actual dollars. And if you can't see that, I honestly don't know what to tell you.

[HeyLaughingBoy]

> Love to see your email filter that separates messages from helpful users from demanding users.

Go one step further and make it a product. OP'll be a millionaire in no time.

[notyourday]

It is called "Pay me" button.

[compiler-guy]

That's a response to a complainer, not a filter to prevent them from taking your time and energy figuring out if it is worth responding.

[xeromal]

How do you filter/ignore them without ignoring important stuff?

[rapind]

Demanding users of OSS at a minimum will cost you time. At worst they can also cost you reputation. At best they can help you improve your project.

I think in most cases the entitlement many (most?) users have makes it a net negative these days. At least for popular projects.

I think the easiest solution is to charge for support. No issue reports or PRs unless you’re also a paying user.

[MaxBarraclough]

> No issue reports or PRs unless you’re also a paying user.

You'd turn down quality bug-reports and code-contributions in the name of blocking spam?

I doubt I'm the only one who would take strong objection to the idea of pay me so that you can work on my project.

Open Source software development can be made to scale to the level of the Linux kernel. I don't buy the idea that its principles need to be thrown out in the name of anti-spam practicalities.

[rapind]

> You'd turn down quality bug-reports and code-contributions in the name of blocking spam?

Absolutely I’d “risk” it. Even a negligible amount like $10, would reduce the noise significantly. I’d also pay that in a heartbeat as a user.

> I don't buy the idea that its principles need to be thrown out in the name of anti-spam practicalities.

What “principles” are you referring to?

[MaxBarraclough]

> What “principles” are you referring to?

Those of Open Source software development:

> The users are treated like co-developers and so they should have access to the source code of the software. Furthermore, users are encouraged to submit additions to the software, code fixes for the software, bug reports, documentation, etc. [0]

Introducing a paywall to keep out those who wish to submit improvements to a project, is the antithesis of encouragement.

> I’d also pay that in a heartbeat as a user.

Not every Open Source contributor has money to give.

A better alternative might be for a forge website (GitHub or whomever) to implement a user-scoring system. Wikipedia uses this approach quite successfully, where only users with a certain level of 'credibility' are permitted to make changes to semi-protected articles. StackExchange/StackOverflow does something similar to avoid spam on 'highly active questions'. Even HackerNews does something like this, showing usernames in green for new accounts.

What the forge would actually do with the user-score, I'm not certain. It would be difficult to do anything without making the forge less welcoming to newcomers.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software#Developme...

[rapind]

I don't agree that this is a "principle". Having free access to the source is IMO the only principle. As stated in the wikipedia article, the rest is just a "suggestion". I think there's plenty of room to evolve while maintaining the core principle of actually being open source. There already exists a lot of OSS that does NOT grant low investment contribution, and that's not always a bad thing.

The point, as I see it, is to raise the investment / friction required to contribute. You are less likely to pollute a project with inane comments if you're invested (not guaranteed, just less likely). I wouldn't recommend this for any / all OSS, but instead when you start getting tons of low value contributions. In fact you'll see a lot of issues on large OSS projects that I wouldn't even categorize as "contributions", but more like complaining or simply asking questions that are often already clearly documented. E.g. "Doesn't work! Fix please!"

We're seeing a lot of OSS projects simply close down their issue reporting because they don't want to deal with it. If there was an easy way to enforce investment / quality of feedback I think some of these project would probably keep their issue reporting open.

User scoring could potentially work too. It would be an interesting experiment. I think there's a lot of room to try things. For example, you could complement a paid model with an application process to gain free access (for those who can't afford it) as both would require user investment (money OR time).

You mentioned Linux as an example. They have a detailed process for reporting issues. You can't just one-line tweet an issue and expect it to receive attention. https://docs.kernel.org/admin-guide/reporting-issues.html#st...

[pdonis]

> I think the easiest solution is to charge for support. No issue reports or PRs unless you’re also a paying user.

Agree 100%. Your time and effort isn't free. Users who want some of it should have to provide value in exchange.

[chefandy]

I don’t think anyone implied FOSS projects lack obligation— just that it’s more manageable.

Uptime (and the related system management,) large monthly withdrawals from your personal checking account, and soliciting donations to recoup some are are constant, recurring obligations more urgent than anything I’ve experienced maintaining repos. Most people shrug and move on if their issues and feature requests get ignored. Even an ignored CVE isn’t going to stop you from paying your rent. Doing your best to get the word out to users (even breaking your code to do so if you’ve got an oft-included but rarely considered library or something), as far as I’m concerned, satisfies your ethical obligations.