this post was submitted on 02 Apr 2024
1066 points (95.9% liked)

Programming

17668 readers
174 users here now

Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!

Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.

Hope you enjoy the instance!

Rules

Rules

  • Follow the programming.dev instance rules
  • Keep content related to programming in some way
  • If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos

Wormhole

Follow the wormhole through a path of communities [email protected]



founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Microsoft employee:

Hi, This is a high priority ticket and the FFmpeg version is currently used in a highly visible product in Microsoft. We have customers experience issues with Caption during Teams Live Event. Please help

Maintainer's comment on twitter:

After politely requesting a support contract from Microsoft for long term maintenance, they offered a one-time payment of a few thousand dollars instead.

This is unacceptable.

And further:

The lesson from the xz fiasco is that investments in maintenance and sustainability are unsexy and probably won't get a middle manager their promotion but pay off a thousandfold over many years.

But try selling that to a bean counter

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 71 points 8 months ago (8 children)

Can someone enlighten me why a one-time payment of a few thousand for a bugfix is unacceptable? I feel like I'm missing something.

[–] [email protected] 126 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (54 children)

I think the maintainer just viewed the bug report as tone deaf. Microsoft is a trillion dollar company and apparently relying on this library without a support contract. Then they a open a high priority bug item. The maintainer saying it's unacceptable is them basically saying they won't prioritize any work unless there's an existing support contract and that they don't do one off payments for bug fixes, which I think is fair.

load more comments (54 replies)
[–] [email protected] 44 points 8 months ago (1 children)

A trillion dollar company using your product in one of their flagship products without a support contract can fuck right off.

Microsoft should be putting up money via the support contract to support the creators in maintaining and further development of their product.

A one off payment might be technically sufficient, it is not ethically or morally sufficient. And to put it in terms shareholders understand.. support contract is cheaper than the cost of an alternative.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 8 months ago

Well it depends on the size of the one time payment. A 6 or 7 figure one time payment would likely get a maintainer to do something. But micro$oft should really be paying a long term support contract for sure.

[–] [email protected] 44 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

There was no bug to fix, the PM didn't keep up with developments in an (apparently) core dependency and was passing outdated arguments to ffmpeg. The fix was for the project to update how it was passing flags to ffmpeg. They'd rather spend the time opening a ticket on ffmpeg's bugtracker and spend thousands of company money begging ffmpeg to help them, when MS is a massive corporation, is apparently relying on ffmpeg, yet has hitherto established no support relationship and also has developed no internal expertise on ffmpeg

They easily could have opened up the code and looked around to find the problem, or checked the changelog since an update broke it, or just rolled back to the last-known working version until they had time to figure it out, instead they just dumped it on ffmpeg's doorstep like their hair was on fire. FFMPEG's development model is explicitly that they iterate quickly and there are very likely to be poorly documented breaking changes between versions. It's not one you pull a new version of casually.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Ok, this time I read the full ticket, so ….

  • They used the software in compliance with provided license
  • opened a bug report on the provided system
  • cooperate with the maintainer to diagnose
  • then when it was user error, they asked where they should have found the doc?
  • then some asshole pasted a huge graphic in the bug report demanding money

I love to hate on Microsoft too, but I only see one asshole here

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago

The point is that a multi billion dollar company, known for squashing and sabotaging open source projects, wants a bug fixed quickly. The open source software that they make big money from has an issue and they COULD just sponsor it, get a support contract, whatever, but instead they want priority because reasons?

If it was a random user, then whatever. The entire point is that this is not a simple random user.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

Thanks was too lazy to read the actual issue - exactly what i expected

[–] [email protected] 35 points 8 months ago (2 children)

The maintainer is a human that needs to eat every day, and not just whenever their services are needed. So at least, the sum of money would need to be a few times higher than whatever labour the fix takes.

But then, the maintainer's ability to fix these bugs doesn't come from nowhere. They worked on this project for likely a long time, which would also need to be taken into account when agreeing on a sum.

Further, this would be business to business. And those contracts often include the value that the client gets out of the software. So if Microsoft makes billions from this open source library, then the maintainer's - as a business - should receive a payment that reflects this for the fix.

All that implies that a few thousand is not nearly enough. Maybe 100k and the maintainer would budge.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 30 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Companies hate giving out cash. Even if it's for software they critically need.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Companies hate giving out cash. Even if it’s for software they critically need.

I think for most cases getting the cash is the easy part, and the hard part is getting all the paperwork in place to validate payments to random external entities. If that was easy, nothing would stop any low-level manager from making cash payments to random users with a GitHub account.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago (3 children)

All of the other things you mention can be solved with money. In terms of the things that are easy and hard, this very much the former.

The real hard part here is whomever in charge of making the actual decision, to expense a pittance.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago

this is true. I tried to donate a small sum to an open source package my team uses a lot. I gave up after weeks of fighting the finance bureucracy.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 8 months ago

Long term maintenance. Meaning not a simple bug fix but providing support on demand and possibly prioritizing requests by the contract grantor for an extended period.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago

Fixing a bug for a fee will create a liability and obligations for the developer. Should you mess it up, Microsoft will have no issue burying you to save even just face.

I can see him getting into a long term relationship that could guarantee the projects survival long-term,(and you at least invest some money for a lawyer to tell you what your are signing on for). For something that would get a few months for the project not so much.