71–80 of 106 posts
I am divided. As a developer, I think open source is great. As an entrepreneur, having more people release stuff for free devalues my work on the long term. I would say a good middle ground would be that open source should only be used to provide tools to developers, not to release production features. A few years back, people would buy a software $25, now they complain when your app is over $1 (thanks Apple).
I think this is great, outside of plastering Buffer's name all over the thing. Seems kinda shitty to do. Open source tweet scheduler? Awesome. Slapping Buffer all over the thing to shimmy into their Google juice (or whatever) to promote it? Not as awesome.
I get your point. It was actually more of a "nod of the head" to them, but I can see why it would look unelegant. I've actually started pitching it as open source tweet scheduler, actually.
Nonetheless, congrats on shipping, can't wait to check it out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I get your point. It was actually more of a "nod of the head" to them, but I can see why it would look unelegant. I've actually started pitching it as open source tweet scheduler, actually.
I agree. If you truly want to pay homage, perhaps wording like "inspired by Buffer" would work a little better. Nonetheless, congrats on shipping, can't wait to check it out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good on you for renaming the project... but why would you chose that name in the first place? I'm not trying to start a flame war -- just curious because I've been in a similar situation. After university I named the first C unit test framework I wrote the oh-so-obvious C*NT. At the time I thought I was being funny, but over a decade later and I can see that this is a symptom of the underlying misogyny/"boy's club" t…
This wasn't an oversight, just a bit of failed translation. Julien mentioned it in the original launch thread, but Tampon in French loosely translates to "buffer." See what happened there? Give the fella a break.
I am divided. As a developer, I think open source is great. As an entrepreneur, having more people release stuff for free devalues my work on the long term. I would say a good middle ground would be that open source should only be used to provide tools to developers, not to release production features. A few years back, people would buy a software $25, now they complain when your app is over $1 (thanks Apple).
So open source should serve you as a developer, but not those others that are mere users?
1) the software: this can be copied or re-implemented fairly easily (see this new project). Happens all the time. Almost every product has an open source clone.
2) the schlep: doing marketing, building a business, keep the servers humming, pay the bills, be available and respond to customers...
The second part cannot be copied easily and takes a lot more effort and commitment than the first. This is what makes a business defensible and viable. And this is what separates companies like Github, Heroku, etc. from "Look-what-I-built-over-the-weekend" projects.
I don't have a twitter account to log in.