Live data from Hacker News

NPM Bans Terminal Ads

zdnet.com

131–140 of 377 posts

Re: NPM Bans Terminal Ads

#131
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.…

> The overwhelming majority of the people complaining about this are well-paid tech workers writing code for well-funded companies

I very much doubt that assertion is true.

> But instead of attacking the guy for trying,

I didn't see many attacks generally in the comments here, directed at the guy for trying generally (a few ad-hominems were thrown, but you could cure all forms of cancer and still attract some of those!). Most were criticising him for trying that way. "Bad idea, this is why I think so, please don't". Maybe the filtering here was sufficient to hide the worse reactions, and things were far less civil elsewhere.

My tuppence worth?

Adverts and other superfluous junk do not belong in build/install/other logs like that, for technical reasons rather than (or as well as) personal preference ones.

The same defences of the idea ("I need to make ends meet somehow", "But I'm only sending a couple of lines to each person", ...) apply equally to spam email so the idea shows the same lack of empathy about potentially inconveniencing others which might be a source of more aggressive reactions. As the title of the article he quotes (in his reaction to those reactions) says: "Open Source is Not About You", it isn't just about him either. And with regard to the quoted text "and the scope of their entitlement extends only to their own projects": exactly, other people on other projects that have the code as a dependency are potentially affected by these adverts - his idea was itself stepping outside the scope he expects others to keep to. Of course he is free to go ahead anyway, though others are equally free to fork the codebase to remove the adverts.

Again, this is not intended as a criticism for trying at all. This is just stating that I think this particular attempt is a pretty bad idea.

Re: NPM Bans Terminal Ads

#132
post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

To write React Facebook needed 20 years of R&D done by open source... jquery, mootools, long list of dead stuff today we needed to learn from. If Facebook needs 1000 projects to show them how to produce the best React then they need to keep 1000 projects in the pipelines so they can build the best successor to current solutions too. That's why they need to fund open source.

No they don’t. They didn’t find any of those projects and it worked out quite well. Let a thousand flowers bloom.

Re: NPM Bans Terminal Ads

#134
I didn't see anyone mention the amount of libraries this is depended on in in the comments. according to npm's site, it's 441 as I post this. The developer himself claims about 33340 other projects use it. (or at the very least, that's what his automated use counter says: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/standard/standard-packages... )

Probably a good thing this was caught early, as the typically large number of node.js dependencies required for a package could have led to some sort of combinatorial explosion of ads on install.

Even assuming that any one ad package checked to make sure it only displayed ads once per session, very many people would want to put an ad into some library somewhere, especially if they have existing users/dependants for their pre-ad version. Careful maintenance would be needed to avoid putting other people's ad code in yours, but also keep it up to date to fix exploits.

Re: NPM Bans Terminal Ads

#135
post #102
post #85

Most of us use vim. That’s ad supported and I think most us can agree it’s not awful. It’s certainly possible to do ads well (maybe even more common in terminal software.) I personally don’t have any experience with ads in NPM though.

Vim isn't ad-supported. Vim has one messsage that you might consider an ad, and the money doesn't support vim's development, it goes to charity. I think it also used to be possible to donate to vim directly to support the development, but I think that money goes to charity now too. (I personally don't think "help poor children in Uganda by donating" is an ad).

Where exactly is this message? I use Vim fairly often and I've never seen it...

Re: NPM Bans Terminal Ads

#136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Why not switch that around (honest question)? If you are a software developer and you want software without adverts, pay for it. If you want software for free, you accept whatever the author of that software chooses to do to pay their bills.

Software that has ads is no longer free (gratis). You're just paying for it with annoyance and intrusion instead of money.

And I think the collective opinion here is that we'd rather go without that software than to pay for it that way. In other words, we won't accept those terms and we won't use that software.

Re: NPM Bans Terminal Ads

#137

What's this "standard" package anyway? Looks like it's packing eslint with an .estlintrc and... that's it?

The history of JS style standards is a lesson in ignoring prior work:

- In the beginning was the jQuery style guidelines, which started for jQuery but were eventually for general JS https://contribute.jquery.org/style-guide/js/

- Then there was idiomatic.js, from a massive bunch of JS community leaders https://github.com/rwaldron/idiomatic.js/, evolving some of the principles of jQuery style guidelines.

- Then AirBnB made their own style guides because they didn't realise the jQuery guidelines or Idiomatic existed

- Feross and some other people made 'Standard' JS, ignoring the previous 3 standards, and said it's standard because, well: https://github.com/standard/standard#but-this-isnt-a-real-we... (see 'tape' and how it's 'the only test framework which supports TAP' because the tape author invented TAP). https://standardjs.com/

- Currently most JS devs who have been around a while use Prettier instead of eslint because it formats the code rather than just complaining (recent versions of Standard apparently do this too, but that came later) https://prettier.io/

Feross himself is awesome. The name 'standardJS' was a poor choice.

Re: NPM Bans Terminal Ads

#138
Oh god the horror of someone asking for some money when you install their free software while getting paid 6 figures and bitching on HN instead of doing anything productive.

Then there’s NPM that feels they have a god given right to make money off of open source while attempting to stop authors from selling or monetizing packages.

Fuck You NPM. First you try to stop authors from selling packages, now you want to stop them from asking for donations. All while making money off them.

Re: NPM Bans Terminal Ads

#139
NPM's move to ban the practice is unsurprising. Consider however that NPM has no qualms about showing various nag screens of their own, such as "a new version of NPM is available," etc. Perhaps they should consider taking leadership in the OSS funding space. "Hey, it looks like you're enjoying these packages x, y, and z! Click here to donate to your favorite OSS projects." Or something.

Re: NPM Bans Terminal Ads

#140
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 work on Enterprise projects and we rarely (never) contribute back financially, because we cannot for practical reasons. It is simply not possible for us to add a "donation" cost to our projects. That will not get past accounting. A license, on the other hand, we would have no issues purchasing that. We purchase (expensive) licenses to proprietary software all the time. We could and would do the same for the open so…

What would such a license look like? Anyone know of examples?
Post reply on HN