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

NPM Bans Terminal Ads

zdnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 377 posts

Re: NPM Bans Terminal Ads

#91

Post by pritambaral »

djsumdog wrote: post #53
beefhash wrote: post #38

See also: GNU parallel showing a nag for being cited in papers. https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/parallel.git/tree/src/para...

huh .. that's interesting. I wonder what RMS's take on that is. I know he worked on a project at one time that would let readers buy articles anonymously. I don't think it got anywhere though.

> I wonder what RMS's take on that is.

From https://www.gnu.org/software/parallel/parallel_design.html#C...:

> As the request for citation is not a legal requirement this is acceptable under GPLv3 and cleared with Richard M. Stallman himself. Thus it does not fall under this: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#RequireCitation

Re: NPM Bans Terminal Ads

#92

Post by jonnyscholes »

jonnyscholes wrote: post #88
Hamuko wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's apparently an ESLint wrapper that's worth $2000 in console ad revenue.

I've seen this comment and reserved comment a few times but here we go... Sure, Standard on the face of it seems simple technologically, and compared to many other things it is. But it's value lies in completely removing long winded and often unnecessary conversations within teams about code style. Standard represents a standard style of writing JS that has gained widespread support (similar to Airbnb's linter config…

This comment is just as applicable to the sibling comment here and many others, I don't mean to pick. Peace.

Re: NPM Bans Terminal Ads

#93

Post by liability »

icebraining wrote: post #80
liability wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The entire advertising industry is scum. I worked in it for two years and wish I never did. That's a sin I now atone for by discouraging younger developers from making the same mistake, using the harshest language I think dang will permit. It doesn't matter if there is no telemetry (and if this were to be normalized, there would eventually be telemetry. Such are the economic incentives in the ad industry. When it's p…

I, like a typical nerd, was just pedantically annoyed by the misused of the term "malware". I don't actually disagree that the ad industry should burn to the ground.

Adware being considered malware used to be the norm. The temptation of money has normalized adware, but being normalized doesn't make it any less malicious. Subjecting people to advertising is an inherently malicious act.

Re: NPM Bans Terminal Ads

#94

Post by shagie »

Avamander wrote: post #52
ramzyo wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for engaging me on this, genuinely appreciate it amidst the torrent of downvotes (would be interested to hear more of the opinions of those who downvoted me). Yeah, good question and something I've been wrestling with a lot myself. I used to think "free" meant monetarily free, but lately (in the last few years, call it aging, I dunno), I've started to subscribe to the notion of "free" as championed by the Free…

I wish there'd be a better way to differentiate free (as in freedom) software and free (as in monetary cost).

The alternate naming of "libre software" exists though is not used too much.

From https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html

> “Free software” means software that respects users' freedom and community. Roughly, it means that the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. Thus, “free software” is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of “free” as in “free speech,” not as in “free beer”. We sometimes call it “libre software,” borrowing the French or Spanish word for “free” as in freedom, to show we do not mean the software is gratis.

Re: NPM Bans Terminal Ads

#95

Post by thosakwe »

The fullPage.js model IMO is the best way to fund an open source project, if you’re not getting paid by an employer specifically to maintain that project. Make a free option available for copyleft-compatible cases, and then charge in cases where profit is involved.

Re: NPM Bans Terminal Ads

#96

Post by lacker »

benologist wrote: post #41
cj wrote: post #11

While I don't particularly like the idea of stuffing ads into npm logs, I don't have the same visceral negative reaction that many people have in these HN threads on this topic. The overwhelming majority of the people complaining about this are well-paid tech workers writing code for well-funded companies that profit off of open source code without providing any reciprocal value to the open source projects in return.…

I think we have got open source funding all wrong. The thing that makes open source great is that, in parallel, half a million projects are ticking along from which we are learning what is good, what is bad, what is the future of our art. It is education. It is research. We look for 100,000 individual solutions to making rent while FAANG are just sitting there with a quarter trillion plus in cash waiting to benefit f…

Google+Microsoft+Facebook contribute quite a lot to open source though. React, Angular, TypeScript, Kubernetes, TensorFlow, etc etc....

Re: NPM Bans Terminal Ads

#97

Post by lacker »

tempguy9999 wrote: post #12

OK and quite right, but how do we actually ensure funding for the stuff that needs it? It seems odd to me that people won't cough up even small amounts to support what F/OSS they rely on, but will pay for closed source stuff.

Companies will often pay small amounts for needed support. It’s pretty common to just hire an external contractor to make some improvements to an open source project that you need. I know a number of people who have gotten open source work funded in this way.

What companies are reluctant to do is pay people money for nothing in return. There are just too many different open source libraries that you use in the normal course of development to communicate with all the developers, much less pay them.

Re: NPM Bans Terminal Ads

#98

Post by tempguy9999 »

jasode wrote: post #82
tempguy9999 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an unfair go at the poster. He said "I'm not arguing that npm install logs should be packed full of ads (it shouldn't)." That's clear as can be. He's asking the same question I am, how do we get sufficient funding for these projects. Re your patreon suggestion, I thought we recently had an article where someone got little to nothing on that. > or getting hired by FAANG So one way to support foss software is t…

>This is an unfair go at the poster. He said "I'm not arguing that npm install logs should be packed full of ads (it shouldn't)." That's clear as can be. Please reread my reply to OP carefully and notice I did not say he endorsed NPM ads. Instead, I specifically disagreed with his suggestion to redirect the discussion away from the NPM ads to the general topic of open-source funding. >He's asking the same question I…

you said

> However, if the concrete implementation of trying to get money is unwanted and unexpected ads, then the correct focus of discussion is the criticism of that ad delivery method

But he'd already said, prior to that

> I'm not arguing that npm install logs should be packed full of ads (it shouldn't).

He'd already said no to them; you're both in agreement. There's nothing to argue about.

Having agreed that nobody wants ads, the next step is to determine how to not have them (and their nastier big sibling, telemetry and malware, which will follow) by providing funding.

(edited for brevity)

Re: NPM Bans Terminal Ads

#99

Post by kelnos »

lolinder wrote: post #89
Hamuko wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a difference between a company logo and "Try Company PRODUCT for 30 days!" I imagine the latter comes with a link, perhaps even a tracking one, to sign up for the service.

Not OP, but I still think that's acceptable. README.md is one of a very small number of places that open source developers can reach their users. Most of the time I only read it once, so if there's an ad there, or a link to their other products, as long as it's not a GIF and they didn't find some way to embed a tracker in README.md, I'm cool with it. It's about as relevant as advertising gets, and it's not coming fro…

As an open source developer, I would refuse to "reach" my users in such a tacky way as selling ad space in my README. You're correct that the README is one of the few touch points with users, and I wouldn't dare waste that on something I consider so disrespectful.

Re: NPM Bans Terminal Ads

#100

Post by TeMPOraL »

wvenable wrote: post #66
cj wrote: post #11

While I don't particularly like the idea of stuffing ads into npm logs, I don't have the same visceral negative reaction that many people have in these HN threads on this topic. The overwhelming majority of the people complaining about this are well-paid tech workers writing code for well-funded companies that profit off of open source code without providing any reciprocal value to the open source projects in return.…

If you are a software developer and you want to make money, sell your software. If you want give away your software for free, do that. Giving away software for free and then using adware to make up the difference is something else entirely. If someone wants to make money with developing software, they have many many ways of doing that. Framing this as poor starving software developers getting the shaft by for-profit…

Indeed. In particular, using a MIT or BSD license is a choice, and one that comes with forgoing expectation of profits, in exchange for boost in chances of adoption. Want to make money and open source software? Try GPL and dual-licensing.
Post reply on HN