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

361–370 of 377 posts

Re: NPM Bans Terminal Ads

#361

Post by nabdab »

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.…

> companies that profit off of open source code without providing any reciprocal value to the open source projects in return

You mean follow the terms of the open source license? If the creator wants money all (s)he has to do is put it up under a different license. You can’t have it both ways. Promoting free usage and expecting money back as well.

Re: NPM Bans Terminal Ads

#362

Post by [deleted] »

0xffff2 wrote: post #172
JonathanMerklin wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

:help license I think in earlier vim versions, you could see a message if you opened vim without a file (vim -u NONE # to prevent .vimrc from doing whatever shenanigans you've set up)

Huh. My .vimrc is pretty simple and definitely doesn't include a "don't show donation messages" line, but I do see the message on the front screen when I do `vim -u NONE`. It's not there when I execute `vim`.

[deleted]

Re: NPM Bans Terminal Ads

#363

Post by pjmlp »

zelon88 wrote: post #106
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 release a ton of my work with open source licensing and I've never thought of it as a revenue stream. If people are financially burdened by making their project open-source; then don't make it open source. Donating something to the community and then getting offended when nobody reciprocates is disingenuous. It's part of the problem with "freemium" software these days where developers think I should be indebted to…

> That's not my problem! There were 100,000,000 developers before you who had to write the ISA, the compiler/interpreter, the OS, the firmware in every device... If I gave each one a nickle I'd be in worse shape than you are.

Well, I have been giving them more than just a nickel since the late 80's, and still doing pretty ok.

Re: NPM Bans Terminal Ads

#364

Post by pjmlp »

caniszczyk wrote: post #319
kyledrake wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I release a ton of my work with open source licensing and I've never thought of it as a revenue stream. That's the problem - nobody treats being an independent OSS dev as a possible career, so we either get 1) extremely privileged people that have the significant amount of time and resources required to contribute substantially for no payment, 2) open source that serves to promote a corporate goal, and 3) less and…

It is a sustainable career if you start a business. If no one wants to pay you for your project, that could be the market telling you something. At the end of, donations don't work and open source is being fairly well sustained if people seek employment or start a business: https://www.aniszczyk.org/2019/03/25/troubles-with-the-open-...

FOSS as business only works for consulting and training, which don't apply to some domains, desktop and mobile for the consumer market as an example.

Re: NPM Bans Terminal Ads

#365

Post by tripzilch »

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.…

This isn't about funding open source, this is about ads. Very, very, very specifically about ads.

> I really wish the discussion were focussed on how the community of open-source consumers can contribute back to the open source ecosystem in a way that promotes the sustainability of the projects and community.

Then you should post an article about that and vote it to the front page.

Re: NPM Bans Terminal Ads

#366

Post by icebraining »

esotericn wrote: post #318
icebraining wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does the ad for OpenRent make Tubermap malware? If not, what's the difference?

Ha. Thanks for visiting! The longer term plan for tubermap, was to essentially have the site be a way of people determining where they should live based on commute times, cost of rent etc. In that sense what you're calling an ad would actually be the primary purpose of the site, i.e. you'd go and look for apartments now you've figured out (based on that pricing information) where makes sense. It just never actually m…

Sorry for throwing that curve ball, but to my excuse you do have your site in your profile :)

I still think that definition is unworkable. What "the user wants to do" isn't even an objective measure. Is VIM malware because it includes s message urging the user to donate to charity, which is unrelated to it'd purpose as an editor? Is apt-get malware because it included an Easter egg? By that definition, the answer is both yes and no, since it depends on who is using it wanting that or not.

Re: NPM Bans Terminal Ads

#367

Post by krainboltgreene »

zelon88 wrote: post #106
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 release a ton of my work with open source licensing and I've never thought of it as a revenue stream. If people are financially burdened by making their project open-source; then don't make it open source. Donating something to the community and then getting offended when nobody reciprocates is disingenuous. It's part of the problem with "freemium" software these days where developers think I should be indebted to…

Are you well paid or well off?

Re: NPM Bans Terminal Ads

#368

Post by esotericn »

icebraining wrote: post #366
esotericn wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ha. Thanks for visiting! The longer term plan for tubermap, was to essentially have the site be a way of people determining where they should live based on commute times, cost of rent etc. In that sense what you're calling an ad would actually be the primary purpose of the site, i.e. you'd go and look for apartments now you've figured out (based on that pricing information) where makes sense. It just never actually m…

Sorry for throwing that curve ball, but to my excuse you do have your site in your profile :) I still think that definition is unworkable. What "the user wants to do" isn't even an objective measure. Is VIM malware because it includes s message urging the user to donate to charity, which is unrelated to it'd purpose as an editor? Is apt-get malware because it included an Easter egg? By that definition, the answer is…

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it

When Microsoft put live tiles and telemetry in Windows, whoever signed off on that knew they were crossing a line.

It doesn't need to be defined that strictly. The OP talks about FM radio adverts. An announcer telling you that a new song like, exists, could be construed in some sense to be an advert, just as my profile telling you that I am indeed a software developer could be.

But that's not really what's pissing people off and abusing their attention here.

Re: NPM Bans Terminal Ads

#370

Post by gerogerke »

mikl wrote: post #359
bipolar_lisper wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

they didn't limit ads. they banned them altogether. it's a charitable thought, but doesn't hold up.

That was the correct thing to do. Considering how many npm packages the average project consumes, having even a single line of advertising for each would make npm a pain in the ass to use, and people would be looking for ways to block the ads.

Clearly, you didn't read the article from the original author. Ads were deduplicated, so only a single ad was shown, even if 500 deps used the funding dependency.
Post reply on HN