That's fair, and I agree because honestly almost no companies IMO actually know how to build robust FOSS projects outside their own needs, I wouldn't put that totally on one place. It pretty much actually comes down to the engineers, in my experience, and how much they understand the whole thing. It's a big problem actually. But I know what you mean, Buck2 is definitely a Meta-first project right now, since they're still gearing up to replace everything. They've been pretty receptive to me, at least, but it probably helps that Neil has a bunch of FOSS experience (and we have a bit of rapport with each, so that helps), and there's many more people than just him on the job who all seem to want it to succeed! I think a lot of the technical decisions will help it grow better than Buck1 did, too.
Re:Meta developer tools: Working at scale
by throwaway1777 on Wednesday June 28, 2023 @07:17PM
(#36514029)
But Meta has had a lot of cool open source projects over the years. React, cassandra, graphql, etc
Re:Meta developer tools: Working at scale
by seemethere on Thursday June 29, 2023 @09:45PM
(#36529523)
What about pytorch?
My issue is more organizational. Meta, as a company, in my experience, does not put in sufficient investment to build a mature, robust open source project with few exceptions. Even things like the www test infra, which are core to the company when I was there had ~1 FTE SWE. That's not open source but you get my point. Buck (and Thrift) seem to have been woefully underinvested for years. Thrift was originally an intern project at a time when Stubby (Google's protobuf-based RPC) was not open source.