Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

PhantomJS: Stepping down as maintainer

groups.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 236 posts

Re: PhantomJS: Stepping down as maintainer

#181

Post by philipkglass »

IshKebab wrote: post #55
azernik wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a classic "public good" - an economic activity whose benefits are impractical or unworthwhile to deny to those who don't pay. Things like emergency services, last-mile road infrastructure, and environmental protection work. A special-case of positive externalities. These are a classic example used by economists of a natural place for government in the economy.

Which makes me wonder why governments don't give more grants for writing open source code. They do it for research, which is another thing that would otherwise probably not pay for itself. I guess if they started doing it a lot of commercial companies would complain to them about the competition.

At some point the falsifiable hypothesis "government cannot provide goods or services better than private actors" mutated into the dogma "government shall not provide goods or services better than private actors."

Re: PhantomJS: Stepping down as maintainer

#182

Post by yebyen »

tyingq wrote: post #165
tayo42 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can just use cgroups on their own without docker

I would guess ulimit -v might work as well, so you may not even need cgroups.

Hah! Something new is also something old. Thanks for that.

But won't you run into issues with child processes, of which Chrome tends to spawn a zillion? (I'm reading that each one gets its own limit under ulimit...)

And potentially get your browser killed when it hits the limit? I haven't tested this and I don't really know how ulimit works, but I think it's a less effective solution than the cgroups for at least one reason.

Re: PhantomJS: Stepping down as maintainer

#183

Post by stevenspasbo »

krzyk wrote: post #171
franciscop wrote: post #145

IMO it'd be a really smart move for Google to hire Vitaly to help with the launching of this feature and things around it. He has done a great job with PhantomJS. Even an acquisition [1] of PhantomJS would totally make sense, then let him keep working on it but based on headless Chrome and with real resources. [1] Careful how you spin it for this route, learn from TJ/Express https://medium.com/@tjholowaychuk/stronglo…

Could you elaborate on the TJ/Express? The post you provided looks like the last one of series of events.

There was a small controversy when StrongLoop purchased the Express repository from TJ, the creator of the project.

Re: PhantomJS: Stepping down as maintainer

#184

Post by alphapapa »

cookiecaper wrote: post #96
avaer wrote: post #32

Open source software has to be one of the least efficient markets out there. If you sum up the very real value PhantomJS has delivered to very real companies over the last several years, napkin math tells me we wouldn't have the project being abandoned for being a "bloody hell" to work on.

Yeah, I really think that open-source software shot itself in the foot by incorporating unlimited free sharing for every recipient into its mantra. Now everyone thinks that open-source has to mean impoverished, because despite all the happy vibes, very few people will pay for software that they could otherwise get for free. You can make your software "source available", i.e., not open-source under activist definition…

I can't help but think that if the Linux kernel were under a CC-NC-BY-SA-type license, as you suggest, that it would be practically unheard of today.

BTW, please mind the distinction between open-source software and Free Software. You don't have to like the FSF, but the distinction they recognize is important.

Re: PhantomJS: Stepping down as maintainer

#187

Post by tyingq »

yebyen wrote: post #182
tyingq wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would guess ulimit -v might work as well, so you may not even need cgroups.

Hah! Something new is also something old. Thanks for that. But won't you run into issues with child processes, of which Chrome tends to spawn a zillion? (I'm reading that each one gets its own limit under ulimit...) And potentially get your browser killed when it hits the limit? I haven't tested this and I don't really know how ulimit works, but I think it's a less effective solution than the cgroups for at least one…

Yes, it is per process, so it would only limit memory-per-tab. I believe you get the "aw snap" window in chrome if it hits the limit.

Re: PhantomJS: Stepping down as maintainer

#188

Post by hluska »

tyingq wrote: post #127
imr_ wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

thank god. I was afraid we will be back in the grasp of the google's moloch.

Curious what "moloch" means in this context. I can google it, of course, but I get "Biblical name relating to a Canaanite god associated with child sacrifice". Which doesn't help me much. End users are children that Google is sacrificing? Or?

I don't think that "Google's moloch" was proper usage, but in literature (ie - Howl by Allen Ginsberg), Moloch refers to something requiring a very costly sacrifice. In Howl, many critics argue that AG is referring to capitalism when he uses Moloch.
Post reply on HN