Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
89% Positive
Analyzed from 1557 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#zulip#anthropic#more#project#team#money#open#source#devs#company
Discussion Sentiment
Analyzed from 1557 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
Discussion (39 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
Not trying to be cynical … but announcing on a Friday afternoon is typically the operating mode for when you need to announce something that you do not want to get noticed.
I can only speculate this weeks Bun/Rust news might have played into how this Zulip news is being handled.
To be clear, excited for Tim & team.
Fun fact: The original blog post announcing the Zulip Open Source project (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10279961) was published on a Friday and I think got more attention because of that choice of date than it would have otherwise.
I've been a happy Zulip user (and realm admin) for 13 years: it's one of my favorite pieces of software, and I use it daily. My understanding is these changes will be very good for Zulip's long-term stability and success.
(I'm a volunteer member of the new foundation's advisory board.)
I do like our current "organized team chat" quite a bit better than the original "group chat", which would often result in confusion with WhatsApp and its equivalents.
I share this because I hope it makes it clear that I have a vested interest in Zulip's future. And I'm happy about this news; I'm confident Zulip will continue to improve for many years.
Also, for those who don't know: Zulip was initially a for-profit startup, which was acquired by Dropbox in 2014. Tim then went to great lengths to get Dropbox to later open source it, and allow him to found a new company (the one that was today donated to the new nonprofit foundation) to continue work on Zulip. I can't think of any other cases where a founder has gone to such great lengths to do right by their users.
That seems substantially better than the usual approach (of either an acquihire leading to an immediate shutdown or an acquisition leading to an inevitable "our incredible journey" shutdown later).
There are 220 people from all over the world who have contributed 20 or more commits to Zulip, and thousands more who've contributed code, volunteer translations, ideas, thoughtful questions, and in so many other ways.
Personally, I find remarks like this to be extremely disrespectful to all of those wonderful people and their open-source work.
This idea that devs owe their continued free service to an open source project they released in the past is a crazy one.
The parent complains about Anthropic hiring devs working on interesting projects, just because they have enough money for that.
> You can’t annihilate a project by hiring its devs away.
I also disagree with that: the codebase is still out there, but what is "a project"? Many (most?) open source projects stop evolving when their devs go away.
The founders take the money, and when the AI bubble pops we'll be left holding the ashes.
It’s okay to make money and change up your career! But this communication is bizarre.
I cannot quite agree to this. But nonetheless I wish good luck to the Zulip project.
The compensation for a senior developer at Anthropic is also certainly much better than a FOSS nonprofit - I'm sure that had nothing to do with his reasoning.
Sad to see yet another longtime open source developer begin working for AI companies that disregard free software licenses for their training and enable the deluge of low quality AI pull requests that waste maintainers' time.
There are many reasons to change job. The pay is always one of them (if you don't work for money, it's not called a job, is it?).
> join Anthropic because of its remarkable commitment to the responsible development of AI for the long-term benefit of humanity.
Obviously, it's better to believe that what Anthropic is doing is good for humanity when you decide to go working for them. But it is at the very least debatable.
Not at the same scale as this, but I've seen friends deliberately choose to get paid less, perhaps much less money, because they wanted to do something. Video games for example, does not pay well, but it may be your passion. Banking pays very well, but it's hard to find any significant emotional involvement.
You can probably argue that's what I did, but it's complicated because I'm hard work. I can't stand debt but I also don't like the feeling of not knowing how to spend all the money. I can say that it's surprisingly hard to get people who are hiring you to accept that (a) the number you put in their mandatory "previous salary" box is correct and yet (b) yes you did understand that they have fixed pay scales and can't possibly match that.
it's pretty funny