Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Stop Building on Corporate-Controlled Languages

blog.deckc.hair

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 324 posts

Re: Stop Building on Corporate-Controlled Languages

#241

Post by throwaway894345 »

vluft wrote: post #124
nandalism wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pip is separate from python itself. With a given language can I download packages with curl and install them myself? I think I can trust curl. The problem is not only that the tool connects to the networks, but who is behind the tool. Google is a company whose business is collecting all the information on people it can. I don't think those in control of python/pip have the same incentives.

there's nothing preventing you from downloading go code manually without the package manager and using it that way

Or even easier--pointing your Go tool at a package proxy of your choice.

Re: Stop Building on Corporate-Controlled Languages

#242

Post by nandalism »

aseipp wrote: post #180
nandalism wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I said I love golang. I invested a lot of my own time into learning it and its ecosystem. The time developers spend learning a language and its libraries should not be discounted. Maybe we overestimate how much corporate backing is required to make a language a success. After all we had successful languages and ecosystems long before any corporations became interested in funding such things. You mention golang's c…

> Maybe we overestimate how much corporate backing is required to make a language a success It depends on what "success" means but I can tell you for a fact even marginal languages, in the grand scheme of things, it is very very expensive to run infrastructure that is well oiled and usable for the modern programmer that they can rely on, unless you are careful. You may not have many of the same luxuries others have.…

Thank you, that was very informative.

> Any open source language could do the same without massive investment (many have). What I meant by this was wrapping other open source libraries like libsodium etc. rather than implementing crypto libraries from scratch. I, wrongly, assumed golang might also be doing that.

It is true I have no experience implementing cryptographic libraries.

Re: Stop Building on Corporate-Controlled Languages

#243

Post by wizzwizz4 »

scarface74 wrote: post #213
nandalism wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Richard Stallman once said he'd rather use software that was slightly less good over non-free software. If you think this is insane or don't understand the viewpoint, I refer you to the fable of the wolf and the dog. https://fablesofaesop.com/the-dog-and-the-wolf.html

I would rather refer you to the reality of the starving developer. I don’t know about you. But I can’t seem to kick my addiction to food and shelter. The best method based on my experience and talents that I know how to adequately feed my addiction is by exchanging my labor doing software development for money.

> I don’t know about you. But I can’t seem to kick my addiction to food and shelter.

Which is why it's all the more important for those of us who can afford to be principled to do so.

Re: Stop Building on Corporate-Controlled Languages

#244

Post by arka2147483647 »

spankalee wrote: post #153
mixmastamyk wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you guarantee this in four dimensions? i.e. after new management takes over?

Yes: new management can't un-open-source something. If it's out there, it's out there. They could close future work, but not existing work.

If they employ the core team, and own the immaterial rigths, they could

1. Make next version propietary, or particially propietary

2. Keep updating the closed version, no more core team for open version

3. After some time the open version is too oudated, too far behind the propietary version

4. Ambiquity on lisencing also deteriorates intrest

For examples see, Qt, MySql, Java

Re: Stop Building on Corporate-Controlled Languages

#246

Post by mfuzzey »

scarface74 wrote: post #96
stephc_int13 wrote: post #85

I tend to agree with this type of stance against corporate ownership. Simply because ownership is power. Power in the hands of individuals is harmless as it is mostly Brownian motion; on the other hand, power in the hands of huge corporations (or governments) can turn nasty very quickly. This is the reason I stopped using VSCode even if the tool is very good. Ownership is too important, with heavy long-term political…

> This is the reason I stopped using VSCode even if the tool is very good. So you’re not going to use the tools that you think are the best and most productive and instead depend on the kindness of strangers volunteering in their free time? And before you cite “Linux”, look at who the top contributors are - all corporations. Yes and how deep down are you willing to do everything on your own and does it give you a com…

>before you cite “Linux”, look at who the top contributors are - all corporations.

That is true but no single corporation has control of Linux. Linux (the kernel) has managed to harness corporations to fund developers so they can work full time on it without giving said corporations "editorial control" over Linux.

Individual corporations that pay Linux developers have some influence over the type of things that are worked on (by paying people that specialise in some parts of the kernel over others) but they don't get to decide what actually goes into the mainline kernel.

Unfortunately the same isn't true of most languages where there is often a single corporation behind it.

Re: Stop Building on Corporate-Controlled Languages

#247

Post by michaelmrose »

scarface74 wrote: post #99
hutzlibu wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"they've embraced Linux containers in Azure and WSL on windows" I am open to the possibility, that Microsoft changed, but this example is a classic "Embrace, extend, and extinguish" tactic by my understanding. Linux is strong with developers and certain tech, but by incorporating Linux, Microsoft makes devs have many good sides of linux, but with all the nice proprietary windows extensions. So they stay on windows. A…

> And that means less devs switching fully to linux to struggle with drivers and co. meaning less solutions there, so even more devs stay on windows and just use the Linux goodies. Isn’t the fact that Linux is still more of a headache an argument for using a product from a company that has a profit motive to provide a good user experience?

Most of the hassle comes from picking a random computer full of parts whose OEMs explicitly and only support Windows and playing does this work with Linux wherein the answer ranges from yes, to yes with kernel version n+, yes with an out of kernel driver, yes with some manual configuration, to hell no.

If you dealt with an OEM that ships a computer with Linux they would iron out these issues for you. If you choose to be your own OEM you must do so. Most people complaining about Linux hardware support have decided that good support means working without issue on whatever they throw at it including the laptop they bought for $200 7 years ago from walmart and that any difficulty in installing or operating it is an indication that volunteers haven't donated enough infinite free labor on the off chance that someone wants to install linux on one of the 7 units of that model still in existence.

A more realistic expectation is that there are good range of products supporting Linux not that absolutely every machine be supported. Good support has been available including devices that ship with Linux installed for years.

Re: Stop Building on Corporate-Controlled Languages

#248

Post by kitsunesoba »

Ok, show me a "truly open" language that feels as nice to write, is as well balanced, and is similar technically to Swift and I'll consider it. As far as I know no such thing exists.

This is why there's pressure from within the Swift community to improve cross-platform support and the number of use cases Swift is viable for rather than rallying around some other more open language, and I'd assume the same is true for the communities surrounding any corporate-founded language. People flock to these languages because they're filling needs that other languages don't.

Re: Stop Building on Corporate-Controlled Languages

#249

Post by repler »

stcroixx wrote: post #123
bob1029 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not going to preemptively switch ecosystems and banish technically good options from my tool belt because I have fears about what could happen. This is exactly where I am at. I use Windows/C#/.NET without any shame for absolutely everything. The more developers who give me grief on some principled basis that " bad, so everything related is bad", the more I double-down on my position. These non-technical argumen…

In the late 90's I used to sit next to a team of about 20 VB developers. When MS decided to make VB obsolete, those folks had to re-learn software development and were getting intern like opportunities because suddenly all that VB knowledge and experience was worth exactly zero. Hopefully y'all fare better when they decide to nuke C# and .NET.

C# is open source

Re: Stop Building on Corporate-Controlled Languages

#250

Post by fluoridation »

leftcenterright wrote: post #245

Genuine question: How did android turn out to be such a privacy nightmare while still being an open-source project? "I am sure it will be phoning home about all sorts of things." is 100% true in case of Android.

Because (to my knowledge at least) there are no hardware vendors flashing unmodified Android builds into their phones.
Post reply on HN