The things nobody wants to pay for

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Open-source infrastructure like the Linux kernel, compilers, and desktop environments underpins much of modern computing, yet key unglamorous work—testing, documentation, maintenance, and UX polish—remains chronically underfunded and under-resourced. Commenters describe a “tragedy of the commons” where corporations and users rely on these projects but rarely pay for them, debate whether solutions should come from taxes, government grants, foundations, licensing changes, or billionaire philanthropy, and note that cultural factors in projects like the kernel also impede better tooling and testing. Many agree that open source is a net societal good, but argue that without new funding and governance models, critical software will continue to depend on fragile volunteer effort.

Linux Desktop UX and Fragmentation

  • Several users find the Linux desktop in 2024 still inconsistent and unreliable, citing:
    • Many mutually incompatible install methods (distro package managers, snaps, flatpaks, tarballs, Docker, curl | sh, source builds).
    • Hardware/power issues (sleep failing, peripherals not working as smoothly as on Windows/macOS).
    • Inconsistent UX across toolkits (KDE vs GTK apps, different file dialogs, tiny scrollbars, scattered settings).
    • Frustrations with drag-and-drop and file management in some environments.
  • Others report positive experiences (e.g., Debian + KDE) and say Linux surpasses Windows in avoiding certain annoyances, but acknowledge rough edges and slow bugfix propagation in “stable” distros.
  • Debate on whether Valve will “fix” the desktop: some argue they upstream broadly and fund KDE; others think their focus is limited to Steam Deck needs.

Kernel Testing, Tooling, and Documentation

  • Anecdotes suggest kernel patches can be accepted with only manual testing; some see this as cultural and coordination-driven.
  • There is criticism that kernel culture undervalues tests, CI, and docs; others note multiple corporate-backed CI efforts (kselftest, KernelCI) already exist.
  • LLVM is cited as a parallel: heavily used and largely developed by corporate engineers, but helper tooling, cleanup, and tests are often deprioritized.

Open Source Funding Models and Incentives

  • Strong concern over “things nobody wants to pay for”: testing, documentation, maintenance, and unglamorous infrastructure.
  • Proposals:
    • A small mandatory levy or license fee on large companies using OSS to fund a “sovereign OSS fund.”
    • Tax deductions for OSS contributions as a more politically realistic alternative.
    • Billionaire philanthropy targeted at OSS.
    • Government-backed grant agencies for critical software; compared to NSF/NIH/arts funding.
  • Skeptics argue:
    • New taxes or license-like conditions would violate open-source definitions or be politically infeasible.
    • Central funds risk corruption, misallocation, or bureaucracy.
    • Directed donations can be offset by fund reallocations.
    • Some governments already fund OSS but at small scale.

Licensing and “Open Source” Terminology

  • Tension between permissive licenses (MIT/BSD) that allow capture without reciprocity and copyleft (GPL/AGPL) that force sharing.
  • Clarification that licenses discriminating against commercial use are not “open source” under established definitions; such models are “source-available” (e.g., BSL).
  • Some complain about misuse of the term “open source”; others argue language is broader than any organization’s definition.

Class, Wealth, and Value of FOSS

  • One view: FOSS is a massive voluntary wealth transfer from workers to investors; companies profit while depending on unpaid infrastructure.
  • Counterview: FOSS is positive-sum “value destruction” of proprietary rents and a socialist-style commons, not a simple transfer.
  • Many credit FOSS with enabling their careers, skills, and businesses; they see personal and societal upside despite corporate freeloading.

AI for Documentation

  • Suggestion: use LLMs to auto-generate annotations and docs cheaply.
  • Pushback: technical docs must be factually correct; LLM hallucinations plus legal/licensing risks make this questionable without expensive expert review.

Government, Corruption, and Governance

  • Mixed attitudes toward government-led funding:
    • Advocates see parallels with publicly funded research; note examples like Germany’s Sovereign Tech Fund.
    • Critics expect politicized allocation, rent-seeking “grant specialists,” and misaligned incentives.
  • Broader side-discussion on perceived systemic corruption, anti-government sentiment, libertarianism, and difficulty organizing effective anti-corruption movements.

Corporations, Foundations, and Compensation

  • Recognition that big companies (Apple, Google, Microsoft, Meta, etc.) already invest heavily in open source, but not proportionally to their usage of core infrastructure.
  • Debate over executive vs technical compensation in foundations:
    • Some find high executive pay at certain foundations excessive relative to key technical figures elsewhere.
    • Others note differences in roles (revenue leadership vs technical stewardship).
  • Questions on how individuals can donate directly to kernel development; Linux Foundation donations exist but are not easily project-directed.