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

How ‘open’ should your open source be?

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–67 of 67 posts

Re: How ‘open’ should your open source be?

#61

Post by onlypositive »

ksec wrote: post #21
onlypositive wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

open-source /əʊp(ə)nˈsɔːs/ adjective denoting software for which the original source code is made freely available and may be redistributed and modified Adding community to this definition is a stretch. It really doesn't matter if in practice communities form around projects, there are far more open source repositories on GitHub that have zero outside contributions, those projects are still open source.

You could try that definition during the 16 - 22 time period and experience the backlash on HN and Twitter. It is also interesting most of these zealotry were gone by the time Fed raises Interest rate and Tech companies started laying off or delaying bonuses.

I stopped caring what those people think a decade ago.

Re: How ‘open’ should your open source be?

#62

Post by funcDropShadow »

brudgers wrote: post #28
marginalia_nu wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well I mean I started out essentially with my own fork, that has modifications that make sense to me. In doing so, I found a trivial optimization that it would be neat if it was backported. Although this would benefit everyone using the mainline project, this is of very low personal importance to me and my patience for navigating an obstacle course is fairly low, even if this is to the detriment of the wider develope…

The goal of the filter is probably to pass people for whom benefiting everyone who uses the project is important because in the long run that's more valuable to the team and more sustainable for the project.

I agree with you in general. But in this specific case, a walk by merge request should be acceptable. To anyone who is familiar with Java enought to be able to work on performance sensitive code, the described change is a no brainer. It doesn't need to be documented, it doesn't need to be discussed, I am pretty sure Intellij IDEA would highlight it as proposed change for performance reasons.

Re: How ‘open’ should your open source be?

#63

Post by prepend »

533474 wrote: post #35
bombcar wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free Software as explicitly anti-corporate is not something Microsoft likes to remind itself of.

Free/Libre Software is not anti-corporate, it is pro-user's freedom to use, modify, sell and improve such software

It’s anti-corporate by purpose, but its philosophy is in opposition, or maybe just neutral, to corporate software sold for profit.

If floss takes over the world there’s no place for corporate software.

But I think it’s a false dichotomy and we will be a pluralistic state (like we are now) where there’s free/libre software that’s really popular and also corporate software where no one wants to volunteer their time to build.

But I understand how Microsoft could think that GPL is a threat to them. Linux did kind of kill (is killing) their dream of every server in the world running windowsnt.

Re: How ‘open’ should your open source be?

#64

Post by prepend »

rwwmike wrote: post #50
Karellen wrote: post #29

> First, let’s take a look at how we got here. > Open source eats the world (and needs some Tums) > Early software was written by researchers and academics, and open by default—it couldn’t even be copyrighted until 1974. We didn’t even have the now-common phrase “open source” until Christine Peterson coined it in 1998. That same year, the OSI formed and established the aforementioned open source definition, which rem…

> I realise that this is intentionally a very highly-compressed version of history, but Author here. As you say, it's a highly-compressed version of history. Getting into the finer points of the evolution of open source wouldn't really have had any bearing on the rest of the article.

Highly compressing out the most important part of open source is kind of funny. Especially since you call out the person who arguably coined the phrase.

Also, this is your readme so it’s not like you have some editor pressuring you to cut down.

Re: How ‘open’ should your open source be?

#66

Post by ignoramous »

cpeterso wrote: post #65
ignoramous wrote: post #2

broken on Firefox mobile. Mirror: https://archive.is/0bxwR

The page works for me in Firefox on Android. What problem are you seeing?

Loads fine now. Previously, the mobile layout was zoomed out due to a few elements stretching the view port width.

Re: How ‘open’ should your open source be?

#67

Post by FartyMcFarter »

cxr wrote: post #55
FartyMcFarter wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Complex projects need to have extensive tests if they are to accept contributions from everyone. I don't mean just unit tests - also extensive integration tests run with sanitizers and static analyzers as well. Without this kind of tests, you accept a significant probability of frequent bugs popping up (especially if you allow contributions from people unfamiliar with the code). It's perfectly fine for authors to dec…

I don't understand how this is supposed to be a response to what I wrote.

I was agreeing with you and expanding on what you said about reward vs investment.
Post reply on HN