Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 17 submissions in the queue.
posted by martyb on Thursday April 24 2014, @04:50PM   Printer-friendly

It's often said that "you get what you pay for", but when it comes to free software, this doesn't apply. You often get a lot more. However, you do get what someone pays for. Software development takes time and money, and without substantial donations, sponsorship, etc., a free-software project will be limited to what volunteers can achieve in their own time.

According to an article in Ars Technica, the security software OpenSSL has one full-time employee and receives about $2000 a year in donations. It's therefore not surprising that bugs aren't always caught before they cause problems.

Based on the recent, and serious, "heartbleed" bug, this state of affairs needs to change and, according to that same article, is about to change. The Linux Foundation is launching the Core Infrastructure Initiative with some decent financial backing. "Amazon Web Services, Cisco, Dell, Facebook, Fujitsu, Google, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, NetApp, Qualcomm, Rackspace, and VMware have all pledged to commit at least $100,000 a year for at least three years".

OpenSSL will not be the only project to receive a share of this money, but it was the inspiration for the initiative and will be the first under consideration. The funding will "not come with strings attached", according to Linux Foundation Executive Director Jim Zemlin.

One could argue it's much cheaper to support something like OpenSSL than to clean up the mess when a small and underfunded team fail to catch important bugs in a timely manner.

Which other projects would be cheaper in the long run (for all concerned) if they received more financial support?

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by monster on Friday April 25 2014, @09:16AM

    by monster (1260) on Friday April 25 2014, @09:16AM (#35989) Journal

    The "fail gracefully" mode should be to return data up to the minimum of both numbers and not to reject it outright, IMHO. Remember, "be strict with what you send and loose in what you accept" is the motto of the Internet and of interoperability in general.

    Software bugs happen. Being too strict about them leads to spawns averybody hates and avoids like XHTML.