You should probably read the blog post. "And to clarify, some people seem to be getting caught up in the terminology – I see many people using ‘Github’ as a placeholder for ‘any OSS activity’, I hope no one is being that literal."
Sweet, thanks. I think I had found this a while ago but lost it, looks great!
...holy smokes, John Resig just replied to me. Thanks so much for jQuery, it has changed my life and is what made me become a programmer. (I now do client work for 20<20Thiel Fellows, and my startup has been in WSJ - none of which would have been the case if I hadn't started programming with jQuery!)
The original Learnable Programming article is a response to the work that we did in building the Khan Academy Computer Science platform - which is exactly that. An educational real-time environment for writing and manipulating code: https://www.khanacademy.org/cs
I love Khan Academy and the CS platform in particular. I think it would be amazing if it was possible to put Choc, or a tool like it, on some of the KA lessons. Being able to step through time (or view all of time in the case of animation) and inspect values are both really useful features for helping folks learn to think procedurally. I find that learning to think procedurally is often harder than learning the syntax.
There was a discussion about this recently saying that it was highly unlikely. All the source was in Git and every git commit references the previous commit, making it highly challenging to modify an old commit without also modifying the commit id. More details: http://archive.is/Khq7R
Yes, it's unlikely they modified the source in git.. But it's possible they were able to download a copy and modify it locally... Possibly adding comments to document certain blocks of code.. Or adding unofficial patches for zfs support... Or worse..
1. Contribute a driver to the kernel. A network driver would be ideal, but any driver will do. Include a binary firmware blob, because including binary firmware blobs in drivers is how linux kernel devs roll (or how they used to roll). When creating the binary firmware blob, use a SHA1 preimage attack to actually create two versions with the same SHA. One is benign, and one runs your back door.
2. Root git server. Replace object containing firmware blob with the alternate version.
This attack should be detectable by comparing blobs from old git clones with blobs from new ones, using a hash that has better preimage resistance than does SHA1.
There are other ways to get your SHA1 colliding binary blob into a git commit in ways that are unlikely to be noticed. I demonstrated one (without actual SHA1 preimage attack) here: http://github.com/joeyh/supercollider
But a binary firmware blob is pretty much ideal.
Amusingly I'm in a very similar boat to you. I'm fairly certain that almost all the money that I'm receiving on Gittip is due to my work on jQuery - which I haven't actively worked in quite a few years.
One way in which Chad explained it to me, that resonated, was that Gittip can be better thought of as a "genius grant". People are giving you money not to support a specific thing (otherwise Gittip would be project-centric, not person-centric) but to support YOU and the things you want to do.
It's kind of crazy because I'm fairly certain that I'm getting donations because of my work on jQuery and not for my current side-project research into Japanese woodblock printing - but people don't seem to mind! (And I've made it clear on my profile what it is, exactly, that I'm working on right now and what I'm using the money for.)
I have a full-time job at Khan Academy and I'm well paid so I don't need the extra money - but it is appreciated. I'm re-donating a portion of the money that I get. Additionally it's paying for my extra server costs for my side projects and it's probably even paying for a good chunk of my monthly utility bill. I've been trying to think of other ways in which I can use the money that'll have a more obvious "money in -> using money -> output" pipeline but I'm not sure what that is, yet.
Let's hope you'll be able to keep your account open and find good uses for the money!
Hah. I'm afraid that -- between being currently funemployed, having just had all of my worldly possessions (at least for this year) stolen out of the back of my car last week, and discovering that travel insurance doesn't really cover it very well ... I can certainly think of a few good uses for it ;)
I'm afraid that I'm still "actively" working on everything (except for Ruby-Processing, which has been passed along), but it's all on a light simmer on the slow burner. More excitingly, there's a new OSS project, still in the early planning stages, which I'm pretty jazzed about.
Seriously though, thanks for the nudge. Much of the time, open source can feel like a slog through a bottomless pit for inane GitHub issues, with the occasional diamond in the rough. Your article is making open source feel more like a friendly love-in tonight.
I don't think so. Having a balance between short-term deadline driven stories and slower, larger, more greenfield projects is a terribly nice luxury for a programmer to have. I also find it hard to imagine a more interesting and enlivening day-to-day environment than a national newsroom.
So definitely a high performance open source kitchen appliance.
Or something to do with open source movies/3d (Blender).
Or maybe its a way to edit programs interactively by using a non-textual abstract syntax storage format that allows for different types of presentations or editors. Like reactive CSS for ASTs or something.
If you enjoy speaking or attending conferences, I've tried to use some of the money (since I'm also in the "have a full time job" boat) towards going to conferences I normally wouldn't, and trying to be an asset to the community there.
Depends on the developer, but in the case of jashkenas we're trying to give him $15.50/week, which is $806 per year - certainly nothing to sneeze at! That's almost a new Macbook Air! Or, if he's so inclined, a large yearly donation to the charity of his choice.
There is definitely a snowball effect though. Once I signed up for Gittip people started to give me tiny amounts (like $0.25/week). It built up-and-up over time and now I'm getting a non-trivial amount of money per week, which is awesome! It's helping to pay for all of my hosting costs and then some.
This kind of supports parent's point. If the creator of CoffeeScript, Backbone.js and Underscore.js only gets 806$/year, us unknown developers will probably get the equivalent of a cup of coffee per year. That being said, I do hope Gittip becomes more popular.
That's true - although that should be an incentive to write and release good Open Source code! Even if a single person gives you $0.25/week (the minimum amount) you'll get $13/year. We're attempting to give most developers at least $1/week - and I should emphasize that this is only from Khan Academy. Just because we're giving this amount it doesn't mean that these devs won't get money from other sources. I, personally, receive donations from a couple dozen users on Gittip with a wide variety of amounts (most being in the $0.25 range).
It's very defeatist to give up before even trying ("only" a cup of coffee). Why not aspire to more?
I'm happy that you're finding personal benefit from Gittip. If it allows or helps you to keep providing great work to the community, that's excellent for everyone.
However, the numbers you quote are not good.
$13 is an amount that a Bangladeshi garment worker earns in a week or so.
It's nobody's aspirational goal to earn that in a year.
It may be the case (in the wider population) that such disproportionately small rewards actually discourage contributions compared to volunteerism, as it provides a (very bad) point of reference to compare the value of open source work to paid commercial work.
Naturally - but there are extremes and it's still the very beginning. There are definitely people earning very little (arguably EVERYONE is earning very little - even the top people are receiving just over minimum wage in the U.S.). Up until now there hasn't been a tool to have this consistent weekly donation for Open Source contributors. But given the growth that we're seeing on Gittip I hope that we can get to the point where people are seriously considering quitting their jobs to work on Open Source full time. It's doubtful that this will affect me now -- but I would've killed to have had this back in like 2004-2006.
The old reality (people giving money to Open Source projects /developers sporadically) was bad. The new reality (consistently giving small amounts of money via Gittip) is better. The future (large amounts of money, equivalent to a paid job, in a consistent manner) will be even better. I'm pushing Gittip because I see it as the best way to bring that future about. It'll take a lot of work but it needs to happen - for the benefit of all Open Source developers.
The point is that Gittip is in its infancy. I agree that most OSS developers aren't going to make a ton of money. I never viewed Gittip as a way to get paid as much as I view it as a way to support.
Chad's goals for Gittip are much larger than paying people to write code. But all big ideas start somewhere. I'm an eternal pessimist and I can say that Chad is on to something really big with Gittip. Not sure anyone knows exactly what it is yet though.
Gittip is designed to grow slowly and shrink slowly. It's designed to be relatively stable over the long term so that you can depend on it to pay your bills. There are three ways for "unknown" developers to receive significant money on Gittip:
1) When a famous developer accepts tips despite the fact that they don't need them, and then regifts them to "unknown" developers that are known to them, perhaps as the people behind the scenes on the projects they're famous for.
Hundreds (thousands?) of companies use jashkenas's work -- if each gave anywhere ~$1k/year then it'd easily pay for a full-time salary for him. Less prolific developers will obviously receive less, but still a significant amount, especially if many companies pitch in.
Totally agree. Another thing is people like jashkenas don't even need that kind of money while regular open source devs working on smaller project might but they only get a few cents which makes the system mostly useless for everyone. As a dev myself of a few moderately successful open source projects, I don't even bother with gittip. I just do it for me and fun and that's it.
If you put http://blog.jquery.com/ into your feedreader it should be able to just automatically detect the feed (it's embedded in the page using a <link rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml" .../>).
When I try to subscribe to http://blog.jquery.com/ or http://blog.jquery.com/feed/ in Thunderbird, I receive an error stating that "the Feed URL is not a valid feed". Also, I couldn't find a feed URL at the jQuery Blog that validates at the W3C Feed Validation Service.
I've seen multiple commenters at the jQuery Blog state that the feed is broken for them too. The following search results bring up some of these comments:
I recall that this issue was acknowledged at some point by one of the contributors at the jQuery Blog. I don't recall who acknowledged it though, but I seem to recall that they stated it would be fixed eventually, which is why I didn't look for a solution until today.