I Love MDN, or the cult of the free in action • Hacker News Board

Re: I Love MDN, or the cult of the free in action

#11

Post by nix23 » Fri, Aug 14, 2020, 4:23 PM UTC

gambler wrote: post #6

>Are you willing to pay 50-100 euros/dollars per year to keep MDN afloat? Yes, as long as there is a guarantee that my money will go towards actually paying people who update the documentation rather than CEO salary, degenerate activism or doomed web startups. >Create an independent entity like Fronteers, but then international, get members to pay 50-100 euros/dollars per year, and use that money to fund MDN or its s…

>rather than CEO salary, degenerate activism or doomed web startups.

Boom you hit the exact right spot!! Love it!

Re: I Love MDN, or the cult of the free in action

#12

Post by tomduncalf » Fri, Aug 14, 2020, 4:23 PM UTC

jagged-chisel wrote: post #9

627467 wrote: post #5

In my head the question is: can a wikipedia-style MDN exist? If the answer is yes than I think op opinion is only on one type of model of organizing and funding a documentation site. Will a wikipedia-style MDN be successful if there are (in addition of volunteers) paid writers who cover the majority of the work need? Maybe not. Maybe that's what the existing MDN proves.

If we go wiki style, can we bootstrap with MDN? Is there a download with an acceptable license that could be used? I don't know if we'd get traction to bootstrap from nothing... EDIT: So I've found answers to my content questions at [1] - does the community have the appetite for an alternate site? 1 - https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/MDN/About#Using_MDN...

Looks like it (or the bulk of it) is licenced CC-BY-SA, so should be possible according to my understanding of the licence

Re: I Love MDN, or the cult of the free in action

#13

Post by benmller313 » Fri, Aug 14, 2020, 4:24 PM UTC

ROARosen wrote: post #8

avolcano wrote: post #4

Rather sad the two proposals here are either "giant browser vendors should pay for it" or "independent web developers should pay for it." It's one thing for developers to pay for things that will develop their independent careers, but MDN is a reference as much as it is a learning resource; it's something developers constantly use at their jobs. Their employers , big or small, should be the ones paying for it. Of cou…

>MDN is a reference as much as it is a learning resource.. >Their employers, big or small, should be the ones paying for it. Your argument is counter intuitive, if it is truly a reference, then surely the developers themselves should pay for it. A company hires a developer with the expectation that they know their field (including the standards etc.). It is the developers' own concern if they (understandably) need a…

You describe the role of a contractor here, not an employee. The tools that I need, like a computer, an IDE, an Internet Connection, Software Licenses, and reference documents, should all be provided by the employer.

Re: I Love MDN, or the cult of the free in action

#14

Post by pjc50 » Fri, Aug 14, 2020, 4:24 PM UTC

avolcano wrote: post #4

Rather sad the two proposals here are either "giant browser vendors should pay for it" or "independent web developers should pay for it." It's one thing for developers to pay for things that will develop their independent careers, but MDN is a reference as much as it is a learning resource; it's something developers constantly use at their jobs. Their employers , big or small, should be the ones paying for it. Of cou…

By comparison, employers routinely pay for MSDN.

Re: I Love MDN, or the cult of the free in action

#15

Post by freeone3000 » Fri, Aug 14, 2020, 4:24 PM UTC

avolcano wrote: post #4

Rather sad the two proposals here are either "giant browser vendors should pay for it" or "independent web developers should pay for it." It's one thing for developers to pay for things that will develop their independent careers, but MDN is a reference as much as it is a learning resource; it's something developers constantly use at their jobs. Their employers , big or small, should be the ones paying for it. Of cou…

Open source versus closed source is not something a business cares about, but it's something employees care about. The price isn't terribly relevant either, nobody is exactly pinching pennies - my business trip per diem is higher than the donation cost above!

But spend has to be justified. There needs to be a paid version with at least one functional change for a business to be able to sponsor it.

We can bullshit all day to finance about it being a "business need" for... I don't know, dark mode, or for the table to list IE6, or a breakdown by country, or something that most users won't miss. But it has to be present, so we can make the case. It can't be a donation, it can't be optional, and we need to get something out of it. That's the only way to get businesses to pay for open source.

Re: I Love MDN, or the cult of the free in action

#16

Post by soapdog » Fri, Aug 14, 2020, 4:25 PM UTC

I wonder how many web developers in this thread, many who are quite certain how things should be run, have ever actually contributed articles to MDN...

Everyone is an armchair director, very few actually contribute to such projects.

Re: I Love MDN, or the cult of the free in action

#17

Post by jameslk » Fri, Aug 14, 2020, 4:26 PM UTC

Google seems to be paying technical writers to build the free (growing) alternative to MDN, https://web.dev. It's not a generalized web resource yet like MDN, but just wait. Of course, you'll have to accept that the documentation here will likely have a Chrome-centric view of web development, further establishing the Chrome-only version of the web.

The loss of MDN will just result in Firefox becoming less relevant. MDN was not just a free resource, it anchored Firefox's relevancy in the web development world. I believe the layoffs of the MDN team is a fairly significant strategic mistake for Mozilla.

Re: I Love MDN, or the cult of the free in action

#18

Post by cannedslime » Fri, Aug 14, 2020, 4:26 PM UTC

avolcano wrote: post #4

Rather sad the two proposals here are either "giant browser vendors should pay for it" or "independent web developers should pay for it." It's one thing for developers to pay for things that will develop their independent careers, but MDN is a reference as much as it is a learning resource; it's something developers constantly use at their jobs. Their employers , big or small, should be the ones paying for it. Of cou…

Usually the provider of a system or a standard also provides the documentation. Should my employer also pay to keep MSDN c# docs up to date? Or should that be the task of microsoft employees?

Re: I Love MDN, or the cult of the free in action

#19

Post by dragonwriter » Fri, Aug 14, 2020, 4:26 PM UTC

ROARosen wrote: post #8

avolcano wrote: post #4

Rather sad the two proposals here are either "giant browser vendors should pay for it" or "independent web developers should pay for it." It's one thing for developers to pay for things that will develop their independent careers, but MDN is a reference as much as it is a learning resource; it's something developers constantly use at their jobs. Their employers , big or small, should be the ones paying for it. Of cou…

>MDN is a reference as much as it is a learning resource.. >Their employers, big or small, should be the ones paying for it. Your argument is counter intuitive, if it is truly a reference, then surely the developers themselves should pay for it. A company hires a developer with the expectation that they know their field (including the standards etc.). It is the developers' own concern if they (understandably) need a…

If the developers are independent contractors, sure. If they are employees, no, the employer should pay

Just like lawyers and LexisNexis and similar tools.

Re: I Love MDN, or the cult of the free in action

#20

Post by commandlinefan » Fri, Aug 14, 2020, 4:27 PM UTC

> If you deny these skills exist by pretending anyone can do it, you’re demeaning the people who have actually taken the time and trouble to build up those skills.