I use private repos on Bitbucket. Most of what I've worked on over the last 5 to 10 years my competitors would absolutely love to get their hands on. Much as I'd love the street cred, I can't publish my code. If the software is an important part of what gives me an advantage over my competitors, then I can't publish the code. If it's written for a client, I can't publish the code. Really, there's only a very narrow spectrum of circumstances under which code can be given to the public. Computer software runs all facets of our lives, and very little of it is publicly available on github.
How about this. If you make sweeping generalizations without thinking things all the way through, you're crap.
My competitors also love my software. By giving them (at least part of) the source they solve bugs and add features for free. A good developer generally has far more than one good idea or library up their sleeve.
I begin work with clients with the explicit understanding that I am using public code that may be improved during the course of their project. I sell them on the benefit that they effectively get the project foundation for free, thanks to using this process with previous clients. Open code is better tested and guarantees that their business and codebase is sustainable towards the future, if something happens to me or our relationship otherwise ends. This security is invaluable to a client.
Closed-source, private code is a much harder sell even with a long list of happy clients. What guarantee can be given that the software will be sustainable going forward?
I do free-lance tech writing on the side. (I love scratching that other half of my brain.) I'm in the same boat re: my writing portfolio. I can share very little of what I've done for pay. I'm in the process of creating sample/example documents for my portfolio.
Comments
I use private repos on Bitbucket. Most of what I've worked on over the last 5 to 10 years my competitors would absolutely love to get their hands on. Much as I'd love the street cred, I can't publish my code. If the software is an important part of what gives me an advantage over my competitors, then I can't publish the code. If it's written for a client, I can't publish the code. Really, there's only a very narrow spectrum of circumstances under which code can be given to the public. Computer software runs all facets of our lives, and very little of it is publicly available on github.
How about this. If you make sweeping generalizations without thinking things all the way through, you're crap.
My competitors also love my software. By giving them (at least part of) the source they solve bugs and add features for free. A good developer generally has far more than one good idea or library up their sleeve.
I begin work with clients with the explicit understanding that I am using public code that may be improved during the course of their project. I sell them on the benefit that they effectively get the project foundation for free, thanks to using this process with previous clients. Open code is better tested and guarantees that their business and codebase is sustainable towards the future, if something happens to me or our relationship otherwise ends. This security is invaluable to a client.
Closed-source, private code is a much harder sell even with a long list of happy clients. What guarantee can be given that the software will be sustainable going forward?
I do free-lance tech writing on the side. (I love scratching that other half of my brain.) I'm in the same boat re: my writing portfolio. I can share very little of what I've done for pay. I'm in the process of creating sample/example documents for my portfolio.
That's legitimate, but you could always set up some repos as resume padding anyway.