281–290 of 377 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Red Hat, Canonical, Docker, Suse, and many others give software away for free, and make money from that same software.
They do that by selling support, or additional non-free features bundled into an "enterprise edition" (at least in the case of Docker). I don't think that's something Feross or other open source maintainers are interested in doing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You mentioned the wealthiest 0.000001% of open source projects in a discussion about how the other 99.999999% need funding as some kind of proof FAANG are pulling their weight. Just their cash savings weigh about 2,500 tonnes so they're obviously not pulling their weight at all. The so-what is software development evolution comes to a grinding halt while we wait for third-world and developing countries to hit the swe…
They don't need funding. Most open-source software is redundant, low quality, or extremely niche. It's ok if some open source software is simply never written. I think it's fair for developers to charge (or otherwise monetize, including ads) for their software, even if they open-source it, but they don't "need" funding any more than any other arbitrary piece of software that someone somewhere thinks should exist. > s…
And the low-quality stuff is super-important too. Before someone can work at FAANG they need to write good software. Before they can write good software they're going to practice writing all kinds of dumb shit and good stuff building the experience and knowledge required to invent a kubernetes. The time investment to obtain the skillset to work for FAANG is years. It requires hardware and connectivity.
The problem with it coming to a grinding halt is we're obviously not finished yet. In ten years React should be in the trash like literally everything that preceded it is. We might still be using Flash if we were finished. Its syntax sure looks like it lent TypeScript some ideas.
What if software genius like Torvalds isn't even rare and we're still just too stupid to foster and enable it for common good...
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.
A software update notice cannot be considered as an ad, can it?
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.
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 AirBn…
What? The tape package on npm? As far as I know, that was made by substack (James Halliday), whereas TAP dates back to 1987 with Perl (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_Anything_Protocol says “the Test::Harness module was written by Tim Bunce and Andreas König”).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Red Hat, Canonical, Docker, Suse, and many others give software away for free, and make money from that same software.
A few thoughts: (1) Most open source projects do not provide the outsized value impact that their creators seem to think they do. Most projects exist around the realm of "its 20% easier to install this than build it ourselves, so lets grab the dependency". That's nice, but lets be clear here: Standard.JS is not building Rails, or NodeJS, or Express, or React, or another seriously valuable project that saves companies…
This is quite debatable and hard to measure, given the problem that Standard solves. As an anecdote, I just started a new TypeScript-based project a few days ago and I’ve spent the past few days mostly dealing with configuration. That’s perfectly fine to me for a personal project where I’d like to decide every aspect of the configuration, but let’s say this was for a fast-moving startup, it’s probably a smarter idea, for most projects, to simply adopt Standard et al. and call it a day. Practically speaking, if you consider a software engineer’s salary and other important factors, I don’t think it’s fair, or accurate, to claim that Standard doesn’t save companies thousands of dollars; it almost certainly does
It's inspiring how quickly ad tech devs can band together to completely remove all ads from their ad tech development environment.