[mcdonje]

Google contributed tons of developer hours for things like bug fixes, without which the project might not be where it is today.

There are examples of foundations or other similar entities paying developers, like Linux, SQLite, even Zig.

Maybe the difference is some projects rely on core contributors more because external contributions are more restricted in some way.

But sure, the entire open source model doesn't work, lol

[saghm]

There's a wide gap between the arguments "the open source model doesn't work" and "the open source model failed to produce anything as good as uv after a couple decades of python tooling churn". The latter is why people are understandably unsure of where things go from here.

[mcdonje]

Seems like you're responding to the wrong person. The person I replied to said the open source model doesn't work. Nobody said the thing in your second quote.

I get the point you're making, but the way you introduced it isn't conducive to productive conversation.

[saghm]

I don't agree. If anything, I'd argue that the comments above were a lot less conducive to productive conversation than mine ("Would single maintainers of critical open source projects be a better situation?", "Are you not aware of foundations?", "But sure, the entire open source model doesn't work, lol").

The entire context of this subthread is whether or not the model that Astral was using was reasonable or not compared to an open source approach. From your initial comment, you've been touting alternatives, and the comment I responded to was giving specific examples of where you think the model worked. I don't think you've provided much evidence that there was a good alternative here, and when you're taking an opinionated stance, a productive conversation will sometimes involve people pointing out flaws they perceive in your arguments.