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

Meteor is now MIT licensed

meteor.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 127 posts

Re: Meteor is now MIT licensed

#11

Post by mcrider »

Lazare wrote: post #6

When Meteor first launched, I was one of the very very many people who said that Meteor looked amazing, but was afraid that their license would hamper adoption. With the change in license, I think the only major hurdle has been removed. The fundamental idea is good, their current execution is extremely slick, and their immediate plans[1] look achievable. I have very high hopes for the project. If you haven't checked…

What roadmap? The FAQ says there isn't one.

Edit: I figured that's what you meant, I was just curious if you had seen an official roadmap. I guess they are too fresh to have one and are waiting for more community input before formalizing their goals -- Which is fine by me.

Re: Meteor is now MIT licensed

#12

Post by [deleted] »

bmelton wrote: post #8
blhack wrote: post #2

I think we all sortof knew this was what it was going to be.

Honestly, I'm surprised. You've got a team of cracker jack developers who introduce a product that, frankly, isn't ready for prime time by any sane person's definition with the goal of targeting the majority of developers (e.g., not the most experienced, and not the ones operating at the top end of scale), with no real mention of license? I expected it to be a commercially licensed language, and honestly, was perfect…

[deleted]

Re: Meteor is now MIT licensed

#13

Post by wavephorm »

I think they should've tried to commercialize it. There is a real lack of good, new development systems these days. If you completely open source a new system, developers will just rip it off, contribute nothing, and it will go nowhere. So where's the incentive to continue making it better?

Developers need to wake up, and realize that new, and substantially better systems can be built if they are willing to pay for them. Unfortunately the FOSS community has burned into developers' consciousness to never pay for anything, ever, which produces and environment of extreme lack of innovation.

Our development tools completely fucking suck precisely because developers are no longer willing to buy quality development tools.

Re: Meteor is now MIT licensed

#14

Post by tikhonj »

wavephorm wrote: post #13

I think they should've tried to commercialize it. There is a real lack of good, new development systems these days. If you completely open source a new system, developers will just rip it off, contribute nothing, and it will go nowhere. So where's the incentive to continue making it better? Developers need to wake up, and realize that new, and substantially better systems can be built if they are willing to pay for t…

I think that's demonstrably false given how good development tools actually are, particularly open source ones. If anything, too much work goes into open source development tools--certainly much more than in any other category!

Just look at how much is accomplished--and how is easily--by various start-ups using open source technology. There are great web servers, web frameworks, libraries, programming languages, text editors and all sorts of other stuff (that I don't use much so can't comment on).

Also, plenty of people contribute to (popular) open source libraries and frameworks. Even less popular projects get a good amount of contribution--I'm following a couple of emacs modes (a fork of JS-2 and Haskell-mode) as well as some tools (like DoctorJS) on GitHub and all of these get pull requests surprisingly often. I suspect the ratio of contributors to users is pretty high.

In short, open source as a model works if your only goal is quality software. Making a framework open source is a good course of action and we should encourage it.

Re: Meteor is now MIT licensed

#15

Post by clavalle »

Fantastic!

I think the sky is the limit with this framework.

If these guys can stick to the spirit of the project, add what can truly help push the system forward while ignoring the multitudes of one offs that will try to chip away the utility, this really has a shot of not only being a game changer but helping define the game for years to come.

Great work!

Re: Meteor is now MIT licensed

#16

Post by andrelewis »

mwill wrote: post #9

Maybe I'm just not the audience for Meteor, because while it looks like a great project but as a nodejs guy, the fact that it hides itself away from the platform and turned away from the fantastic npm makes me sort of weary about it as a whole. But I imagine people coming from rails or whatever don't find this a problem at all.

Agreed, why keep reinventing the wheel?

Re: Meteor is now MIT licensed

#17

Post by andrelewis »

bmelton wrote: post #8
blhack wrote: post #2

I think we all sortof knew this was what it was going to be.

Honestly, I'm surprised. You've got a team of cracker jack developers who introduce a product that, frankly, isn't ready for prime time by any sane person's definition with the goal of targeting the majority of developers (e.g., not the most experienced, and not the ones operating at the top end of scale), with no real mention of license? I expected it to be a commercially licensed language, and honestly, was perfect…

I would suspect the business model will be support and feature development. In a widely used framework, there will always be people who need it customized, or need to integrate it in new and interesting ways, or require some sort of commercial support contract in order to use it. If they make these options available early on, they will make money.

Re: Meteor is now MIT licensed

#18

Post by andrelewis »

debergalis wrote: post #5
chrisrogers wrote: post #3

This is great to hear. This issue was one of my great qualms with the platform, and the biggest argument for creating a copycat platform. Now to address the auth/permissions!

Thanks! auth is next. But check out the madewith.meteor.com source for a good example of how you can lock down an app today.

Just a random thought but perhaps you should put up a honeypot version on it's own server to see where the weak spots in security are. Then invite the community to find the holes, or actually ask the hacking communities to help identify gaps in security? Honeypot in this instance meaning a machine dedicated to pulling in attacks (Like flies to honey) to help you identify weak areas of your framework.

Re: Meteor is now MIT licensed

#19

Post by wavephorm »

tikhonj wrote: post #14
wavephorm wrote: post #13

I think they should've tried to commercialize it. There is a real lack of good, new development systems these days. If you completely open source a new system, developers will just rip it off, contribute nothing, and it will go nowhere. So where's the incentive to continue making it better? Developers need to wake up, and realize that new, and substantially better systems can be built if they are willing to pay for t…

I think that's demonstrably false given how good development tools actually are, particularly open source ones. If anything, too much work goes into open source development tools--certainly much more than in any other category! Just look at how much is accomplished--and how is easily--by various start-ups using open source technology. There are great web servers, web frameworks, libraries, programming languages, text…

  I think that's demonstrably false given how good development tools actually are
No. Development tools seriously suck. Show me an IDE that can debug multi-client websocket code. Good luck. Every open source IDE's like Eclipse are useless these days because they can no longer keep up with the new problems being introduced.

Light Table is maybe the first genuinely new, commercial, development environment to be introduced. People are gushing over the possibilities. All of a sudden people might, for the first time in 15 years, be willing to pay real money to make their lives easier.

The open source model is a socialist model that has failed to keep up with the pace of technological change, and encourages developers to not purchase development tools which slows innovation in development technologies. FOSS ultimately holds back innovation.

Re: Meteor is now MIT licensed

#20

Post by prezjordan »

wavephorm wrote: post #19
tikhonj wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's demonstrably false given how good development tools actually are, particularly open source ones. If anything, too much work goes into open source development tools--certainly much more than in any other category! Just look at how much is accomplished--and how is easily--by various start-ups using open source technology. There are great web servers, web frameworks, libraries, programming languages, text…

I think that's demonstrably false given how good development tools actually are No. Development tools seriously suck. Show me an IDE that can debug multi-client websocket code. Good luck. Every open source IDE's like Eclipse are useless these days because they can no longer keep up with the new problems being introduced. Light Table is maybe the first genuinely new, commercial, development environment to be introduce…

You seem to ignore the fact that open-source allows more people to use a product. When more people use it, more activity happens - which leads to evolution.

Not sure how you can ignore the open-source software that rules the software development world.

Post reply on HN