I spent plenty of time considering it the GP, my point lines up with it insomuch as I agree that open-source isn't perfect and can / is being improved. That's really quite a platitude though and on the important pieces we do disagree. I don't think open-source has an unclear reward framework that's causing it to under server nonprogrammers. It's just the there's only very seldom a reward for serving nonprogrammers. And quite often there is a reward for alienating those people so that developers don't have to spend all their time explaining basic principles to them. This doesn't fit into some high minded view of open-source that it's all about getting contributions from everyone and working together. In reality open-source projects make progress by attracting a few very motivated and talented people. Projects do miss out on good people because no one's willing to teach them, but there's many more people who will gladly suck up developer time and never give anything back and you have to draw the line somewhere or you'll never get anything done. I think fundamentally, where we disagree is that what you consider signs of dysfunction are really signs that the system is functioning as intended.
Finally I don't see any use in pointing out that these projects aren't 100% open-source with the RMS seal of approval. In fact I think it's pretty inane. To some people open-source is this high-minded ideology for Android, Chrome and most other open-source projects open-source is technique; we use it to solve real problems when it's the right tool for the job. Do you really not believe that Android and Chrome are effective applications of this technique? I may be dating myself, although I do know that not literally every language is open-source these days it seems like it's all but true. It wasn't in the dark days but that's a lot of why they were so dark isn't it?
> It's just the there's only very seldom a reward for serving nonprogrammers. And quite often there is a reward for alienating those people so that developers don't have to spend all their time explaining basic principles to them.
This was definitely one of my main points. We just differ on whether that's "system functioning as intended" or if there's room for change. That's something that makes sense to disagree on. I'm describing the state of the system, and sure I made some judgement calls on whether that state was good or bad, but we still agree on the reality.
What you've described as the system functioning as intended are the things you've recognized bring a stability to the system at play; that without these ways of operating, the complex interplay between developer time, motivation to continue, and ability to produce would come to a screeching halt. The simplest solution is just to cut off from the outside world and continue in isolation, all I'm saying is that there are also other solutions that could be considered to keep that stability and make things even more productive. Do I know what they are? No. So I'm largely useless in that respect, but I will at least try to point out that stability is not the same thing as optimal function.
Finally I don't see any use in pointing out that these projects aren't 100% open-source with the RMS seal of approval. In fact I think it's pretty inane. To some people open-source is this high-minded ideology for Android, Chrome and most other open-source projects open-source is technique; we use it to solve real problems when it's the right tool for the job. Do you really not believe that Android and Chrome are effective applications of this technique? I may be dating myself, although I do know that not literally every language is open-source these days it seems like it's all but true. It wasn't in the dark days but that's a lot of why they were so dark isn't it?