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

251–260 of 377 posts

Re: NPM Bans Terminal Ads

#251

Post by lioeters »

simplecomplex wrote: post #157
lioeters wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup, just this week I noticed the npm package `core-js` used by the Babel transpiler was polluting my build logs. It listed opencollective and patreon as possible channels of support. That I didn't mind so much, but then there was a message (repeated countless times in the logs) that the author was looking for a job. That's just spam in my terminal, unacceptable. Background and heated discussion in the following GitH…

It’s not spam, anymore than your comment is. It’s a message from the author of the free software you’re using. Asking for a job. If that offends you you should get over yourself. How entitled and spoiled you are to think you should have a right to use their software for free and not be bothered by a short message from the author.

I do understand your point of view, that free software can print any message in my terminal - or do whatever it wants, really, I'm using it for free and I have no right to complain.

I wasn't really offended by it, my reaction was without (much) emotion. It was just based on my own standards of acceptable behavior that I expect from what runs in the terminal. There's a time and place for ads (not in my logs), or people posting personal messages (maybe link to their blog or site?)..

Imagine if more package developers/maintainers decided to advertise in this way, it would ruin the calm and peace of working in the terminal.

Re: NPM Bans Terminal Ads

#252

Post by jasonhansel »

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 find it particularly ironic that the tech boom is seen as a triumph of capitalism when it depends so much on the free labor of an army of volunteers.

Re: NPM Bans Terminal Ads

#253

Post by ollieshmollie »

chipotle_coyote wrote: post #202
saagarjha wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am fairly certain that Apple has hired people who previously worked on permissively-licensed projects to work on the closed-source fork.

I'd like to see that backed up, really. There are certainly criticisms to be made of how Apple has handled their open source projects (slow to update and push out new releases, not great at cooperating with upstream projects when Apple has forked them, typically cryptic Apple communication practices). But if Apple has taken open source projects, created closed-source forks of them, and hired original developers of an…

I remember finding an article on HN about a developer for FreeBSD going to work on Mac OS[1], before returning to work in open source. Isn't the Mac OS user space an example of what you describe?

[1] https://www.wired.com/2013/08/jordan-hubbard/

Re: NPM Bans Terminal Ads

#254

Post by rvp-x »

chipotle_coyote wrote: post #202
saagarjha wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am fairly certain that Apple has hired people who previously worked on permissively-licensed projects to work on the closed-source fork.

I'd like to see that backed up, really. There are certainly criticisms to be made of how Apple has handled their open source projects (slow to update and push out new releases, not great at cooperating with upstream projects when Apple has forked them, typically cryptic Apple communication practices). But if Apple has taken open source projects, created closed-source forks of them, and hired original developers of an…

I got direct quotes from Apple employees about how their employment has banned them from doing anything related to GPLv3 code in their free time, specifically GCC.

I don't want to mention them in a public website in case that gets them in trouble.

Re: NPM Bans Terminal Ads

#255

Post by 3xblah »

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.…

The parent comment seems to rely on the all-too-common assumption that the only means by which a software author can be paid is through internet advertising.

With that assumption, the argument against advertising then can be shifted to arguments for or against paying software authors for their work. Of course, this was not the issue that triggered the action or resulting commentary. It was advertising.

It is an evasive shift from one issue to another, a rhetorical trick. There is no debate for or against paying for software. There is a debate against advertising via internet. That debate has existed since the network opened to the public.

Re: NPM Bans Terminal Ads

#256

Post by [deleted] »

vfc1 wrote: post #69

I don't like terminal ads either, but I wouldn't mind them if they meant that the creators of popular libraries can keep maintaining their work without giving up their personal lives. Monetization is still a huge taboo in the open-source community and is badly viewed by many of it's biggest beneficiaries, developers who make their entire living out of skills that consist of knowing how to use these open source and fr…

[deleted]

Re: NPM Bans Terminal Ads

#257

Post by slang800 »

nothrabannosir wrote: post #101

I know this is a controversial opinion and I know it won’t directly solve the issue at hand, but it’s related and it addresses some of the concerns raised by many people in this thread: how do we get open source the funding it needs? Consider a world where the norm is not MIT/BSD but GPL dual licensed with MIT for a fee. This would give back control to maintainers of a library, and it would allow people without funds…

There's a good article about this practice here: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling-exceptions.en.html

Usually you wouldn't use the MIT license to do it, but it's the same idea.

Re: NPM Bans Terminal Ads

#258

Post by chaostheory »

lacker wrote: post #111
chaostheory wrote: post #57

I’m hoping that with GitHub getting into the donation game, things will get a little better for funding open source. This is just the symptom. It’s really difficult to convince people to part with just $100 a year to fund something critical to our org. I do fund some projects, but there are plenty of others that I use regularly that I don’t fund monthly

The problem is that the $100 usually isn’t funding something critical to your org. If you are getting some key feature in return for your money most organizations will be happy to pay, a lot more than $100 really. But giving someone $100 for a product whose stated price is $0 doesn’t make as much sense.

> If you are getting some key feature in return for your money most organizations will be happy to pay, a lot more than $100 really.

I don't feel this is true. How many major organizations donate or sponsor django, vue, or another major framework that's a key part of their business?

Re: NPM Bans Terminal Ads

#259

Post by chaostheory »

nitwit005 wrote: post #124
chaostheory wrote: post #57

I’m hoping that with GitHub getting into the donation game, things will get a little better for funding open source. This is just the symptom. It’s really difficult to convince people to part with just $100 a year to fund something critical to our org. I do fund some projects, but there are plenty of others that I use regularly that I don’t fund monthly

I suspect you'd see people doing this even if they were well funded. Charities often happily continue fundraising long after they've reached their goals.

Sure, but the majority aren't even close to being well funded.

Re: NPM Bans Terminal Ads

#260

Post by slang800 »

miguelmota wrote: post #211
huntaub wrote: post #8

The rationale from the author of the package who adding advertising is enlightening and definitely worth reading. https://feross.org/funding-experiment-recap/

> Open source maintainers need income to fund their work. lol if you need to make income from your work, don't give it away for free. Should everyone demand getting paid now for working on hobby projects?

Well, obviously selling paid software is a well known way to make money. However, it would be really cool if we could give away software for free and make money off it at the same time.
Post reply on HN