Open-source has many benefits that have kept me locked in the community for years. It is people coming together and building for everyone. However, the longer I’ve been part of this community, the more I see certain cracks that need to be fixed.
These are not deal-breakers—they don’t suddenly ruin the essence of open source—and they are mainly human problems. However, problems become more pronounced if left unaddressed, so discussing them is a necessary step in identifying what might be wrong. It’s not an attack on the community, rather an honest look at issues quietly overlooked.
The cost of passion projects
Why contributors often burn out quietly
One of the first cracks that started to show is not code but people. Successful projects are built on the backs of unpaid people who endure sleepless nights and quiet frustration. Many of the free tools we use are only here because a group of people gave up so much. Sadly, when the passion fades, the project immediately starts to stall, the community scatters, and users move on.
The npm LeftPad incident reported by the DEV community is a perfect example. LeftPad is famous for being the tiny JavaScript package that broke thousands of websites in 2016 after the creator, Azer Koçulu, removed it from the Node Package Manager. After years of maintaining several small-module packages with little appreciation, a dispute arose, and the creator simply walked away. This was a case of burnout and protest, and it exposed how fragile things truly are when we rely entirely on goodwill.
Sadly, it’s not an isolated case. In 2023, ITPro found that 73% of developers were experiencing burnout, with a large share of those being developers in the open-source community. This is partly because, even though several maintainers aren’t paid, they feel a need to respond to user issues and update dependencies. There’s a lot of invisible labor that drives open source, and if the community doesn’t start valuing it, passionate projects will keep burning out.
Documentation: written by experts, for experts
Why guides often confuse instead of help
For first-timers to an open-source project, it may feel like joining a discussion mid-conversation. The documentation doesn’t always exist, and sometimes when it does, it’s outdated or fragmented, assuming every user knows the basics. This is true even for a big project like Blender, which has been the subject of frequent community discussion about its steep learning curve. Even Blender’s user forums have newcomers asking for beginner-friendly guides.
This is an even bigger challenge for smaller projects with fewer hands and unpaid labor. Priority is naturally given to getting the code working instead of documentation. Very often, documentation highlights features but not real-world implementation challenges. Projects like Mozilla’s MDN or Python’s beginner tutorials show that clear, structured docs attract new contributors—but many smaller projects can’t spare the time.
A tool may be great, but if the documentation is poorly written, it’ll drive users away. It positions these open-source projects only for the already skilled, and even if newcomers have great ideas, they may not have enough time to share them. This is the communication challenge often encountered in open-source projects. Until documentation is treated as a first-class contribution, open-source will keep recreating the same barriers.
Fragmentation fatigue is real
The unstable cost of too many choices
Freedom of choice has always been one of the strengths of open-source, but this can also be a weakness. Almost every popular open-source tool has several alternatives and forks. Linux is a typical example, with hundreds of distributions. Every new one addresses a specific technical challenge or explores a new direction. This level of diversity, while it drives innovation, also spreads resources thin.
For a developer, it becomes a real dilemma about which one to support, and a user keeps wondering which of the numerous options will still be maintained after several years.
A Cornell University study of 1,932 GitHub projects found 315 (16%) were abandoned, and only 41% survived because new core maintainers stepped in. When that happens, users migrate to newer forks or alternatives just to stay secure and compatible.
According to DistroWatch, there are well over 500 active Linux distributions, yet Boiling Steam reports that fewer than 10 account for roughly 80% of users. Forks add diversity, but they also break developer focus.
Open-source faces this fragmentation that ultimately slows progress and splits energy that could’ve collectively created something bigger and stronger. The tragedy is that open-source doesn’t lack talent—it just keeps redistributing it into smaller circles. Too much freedom causes a lot of fatigue.
When mainstream meets open-source
How corporate influence reshapes projects and priorities
Grassroots passion used to be the backbone of open-source, but this has started changing as major tech companies have increasingly stepped in. They are funding projects, sponsoring development, and acquiring popular tools.
The OpenTofu manifest of 2023 was born when HashiCorp announced a change in the license for Terraform, moving from the permissive Mozilla Public License (MPL 2.0) to the more restrictive Business Source License (BSL) 1.1. This shift limited commercial use, prompting companies to come together and create OpenTofu, a fully open-source fork of Terraform under the neutral stewardship of the Linux Foundation. This is a clear example of how corporate decisions influence the direction and accessibility of open-source projects.
This influx brings resources and stability, but priorities begin to change. Corporate interests can start prioritizing features aligned with their goals, even if those goals differ from the community’s core needs.
The corporate influence on open-source is a double-edged sword: it may keep projects that would otherwise die alive, but it may also compromise the independence and community that made these projects valuable to start with.
Keeping open-source healthy: facing its hidden cracks
Open-source reminds us that people can come together, build, and solve problems for everyone. Passion, collaboration, and creativity are core strengths of the open-source community. However, burnout, fragmentation, and corporate influence are issues we must not ignore if the community is to thrive. They may not break open-source, but they are strong enough to shape who can participate and how it grows.
I enjoy replacing Google services with open-source options and trying out open-source note-taking apps. But none of these will have longevity if the community doesn’t start doing some things differently. The open-source community should value people dedicated to maintaining projects more, show greater interest in investing in clarity, and strike the right balance between independence and support.