Zhong in response to the broken bridge: is OpenSSL worthy of sympathy?

origin:http://www.jianshu.com/p/9afd725c848b

An "invisible comrade" in the interface has sparked Horon's criticism of the distorted open source software and the true history of OpenSSL.

Then Sina's famous Bo @ Broken Bridge, also wrote a "for the OpenSSL donation discussion"

Broken Bridge Point of view, condensed later, is the sentence: "OpenSSL long code updates slow, poor quality." The root cause is lack of money. It can not find a business model, big companies do not pay attention. Although the individual user is in use, but does not have any concept to it, the pledge is few, the annual $ thousands of. ”

My criticisms are as follows:

Looked at the response of the Broken bridge. Not much else to say, just one. Horon says OpenSSL is primarily a management problem, not a matter of money. And he said: "Please the good management staff for money." Some programmers may be natural managers, but this is rare. The problem is that the management issues exposed by the OpenSSL foundation do not need to be expensive to get a good management person to solve. But they have made a lot of low-level mistakes that should never have been made.

If I open up a project, then people criticize my code is rotten. I argued: "It's not because you didn't donate to me that I couldn't hire a good programmer, so the loophole was there and the code was just rotten." "If I dare to say so, then don't mix in the open source circle." But the idea of broken bridges is essentially the logic of shirking responsibility. This is the people outside the circle, the common take for granted.

In the open source circle, what should be the correct response? Scold My Code rotten, no problem. Either give me the code, or give me issue, or fork a version of my own play. It's good to give money, but that's not the point. To help an open source project more and more good at the root, is a good patch, in another, all indirect contributions. Money is the most indirect.

And this logic, for those who have never received donations, are all voluntary contributors, but very good open source projects. is very unfair.

The common story should be: An open source project, because the contributor is more and more, the quality is getting better, the user is more and more, will have the commercial and the individual donation appears. If an open source project, in the decline, quality is getting worse, less donations, it should first reflect on, but also open source project developers and managers themselves, rather than reversing, shirk responsibility.

Above, is my view of the Broken Bridge article. In conclusion, my criticisms of OpenSSL are far greater than sympathy.