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

Discourse Is Not Going Closed Source

blog.discourse.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 90 posts

Re: Discourse Is Not Going Closed Source

#21

Post by saghm »

LoganDark wrote: post #11
Gigachad wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The above statement is claiming it likely is intended as something bad though. A convenient coverup.

Covering something up is not bad faith. PR firms do it all the time (though plenty more do things in bad faith too). If what you're covering up is an explicitly user-hostile decision then maybe that's bad faith if what you're trying to do is trick people. But if you're just lying for brownie points then that's not always bad faith, just dumb.

I don't agree with your definition here. Good faith means trying to be correct but potentially not being by accident. Intentionally lying is bad faith and by definition trying to trick people; you know the truth is one thing, but you're saying something else to try to get them to believe it.

Re: Discourse Is Not Going Closed Source

#22

Post by LoganDark »

saghm wrote: post #21
LoganDark wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Covering something up is not bad faith. PR firms do it all the time (though plenty more do things in bad faith too). If what you're covering up is an explicitly user-hostile decision then maybe that's bad faith if what you're trying to do is trick people. But if you're just lying for brownie points then that's not always bad faith, just dumb.

I don't agree with your definition here. Good faith means trying to be correct but potentially not being by accident. Intentionally lying is bad faith and by definition trying to trick people; you know the truth is one thing, but you're saying something else to try to get them to believe it.

What I'm saying is that even lying is only bad faith depending on the intent of the lie. That doesn't mean others can't be upset regardless of the lie's intent, but I wouldn't say all lies are bad faith.

Re: Discourse Is Not Going Closed Source

#23

Post by shevy-java »

"over a decade ago, the repository has been licensed under GPLv2. And that’s not changing"

Well - people can continue the GPLv2 fork anyway. So ultimately what Cal.com would do here does not matter; that's the beauty of GPL in general. It is a strict licence. I think GPLv2 was the better decision for the Linux kernel than, say, BSD/MIT.

> That code is exposed to constant scrutiny from attackers, defenders, researchers, cloud vendors, and maintainers across the globe. It is attacked relentlessly, but it is also hardened relentlessly.

It is clear that there is a business decision with regards to Cal.com jumping away from discourse, but the claim that open source is automatically better than closed source, when it comes to security, is also strange. Remember xz utils backdoor? Now, people noticed this eventually. Ok. How many placed trojans exist that people are unaware about? Perhaps there are more sophisticated backdoors. Perhaps AI is also used to help disguise them. I don't think that merely because something is open source, means it is automatically good or better with regards to security. Can you trust software? In California there are recent censorship bills to restrict 3D printing further, allegedly to curb on plastic guns (but in reality sponsored by lobbyists from the industry). Can a 3D printer print out a 3D printer that is not restricted? Is the state sniffing after people via laws not also a restriction? I guess it is possible to ensure a clean open hardware and open software system acting in tandem. But you kind of have to show that this is the case. See this old discussion about Trust, on reddit: https://old.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1m4mwn/a_simpl...

Re: Discourse Is Not Going Closed Source

#24

Post by pseudalopex »

LoganDark wrote: post #22
saghm wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't agree with your definition here. Good faith means trying to be correct but potentially not being by accident. Intentionally lying is bad faith and by definition trying to trick people; you know the truth is one thing, but you're saying something else to try to get them to believe it.

What I'm saying is that even lying is only bad faith depending on the intent of the lie. That doesn't mean others can't be upset regardless of the lie's intent, but I wouldn't say all lies are bad faith.

> I wouldn't say all lies are bad faith.

No one said this.

Re: Discourse Is Not Going Closed Source

#25

Post by thedevilslawyer »

LoganDark wrote: post #20
chrismorgan wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Framing a business decision as a security imperative sure sounds like intent to mislead to me.

Misdirection is normal business practice. For example, Quadpay/Zipco recently made a change where instead of appraising your credit independently for each of their plans, they calculate a total amount you're allowed to have in flight at any given time, and share that across everything. In their FAQ, there is an entry for "Is my purchasing power going down?" and the answer is some bullshit like "Your purchasing power…

Misdirection is misleading, and bad faith.

Re: Discourse Is Not Going Closed Source

#26

Post by spockz »

LoganDark wrote: post #20
chrismorgan wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Framing a business decision as a security imperative sure sounds like intent to mislead to me.

Misdirection is normal business practice. For example, Quadpay/Zipco recently made a change where instead of appraising your credit independently for each of their plans, they calculate a total amount you're allowed to have in flight at any given time, and share that across everything. In their FAQ, there is an entry for "Is my purchasing power going down?" and the answer is some bullshit like "Your purchasing power…

How far have we fallen to call misdirection a normal business practice. I agree that it is everywhere but it isn’t or at least shouldn’t be normal.

Re: Discourse Is Not Going Closed Source

#27

Post by sebbadk »

bruce511 wrote: post #17
kelsey98765431 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The web has grown so hostile lately that javascript is honestly not safe or useful anymore. the only thing it's used for is serving ads and trackers and paywalls, if i can't read a website with no script enabled it's not meant for me and im just not reading it.

I concur that most web sites could use less JavaScript. And a lot of (but not all) cosmetic uses for JavaScript can be done in CSS. Of course for web apps (as distinct from web sites) most of what we do would be impossible without JavaScript. Infinite scrolling, maps (moving and zooming), field validation on entry, asynchronous page updates, web sockets, all require JavaScript. Of course JavaScript is abused. But it'…

Infinite scrolling is JavaScript abuse. Pagination is much better for letting people keep track of their progress and time.

Re: Discourse Is Not Going Closed Source

#28

Post by Chaosvex »

spockz wrote: post #26
LoganDark wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Misdirection is normal business practice. For example, Quadpay/Zipco recently made a change where instead of appraising your credit independently for each of their plans, they calculate a total amount you're allowed to have in flight at any given time, and share that across everything. In their FAQ, there is an entry for "Is my purchasing power going down?" and the answer is some bullshit like "Your purchasing power…

How far have we fallen to call misdirection a normal business practice. I agree that it is everywhere but it isn’t or at least shouldn’t be normal.

Pertinent comment from earlier: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47801845

Re: Discourse Is Not Going Closed Source

#29

Post by Chaosvex »

shevy-java wrote: post #23

"over a decade ago, the repository has been licensed under GPLv2. And that’s not changing" Well - people can continue the GPLv2 fork anyway. So ultimately what Cal.com would do here does not matter; that's the beauty of GPL in general. It is a strict licence. I think GPLv2 was the better decision for the Linux kernel than, say, BSD/MIT. > That code is exposed to constant scrutiny from attackers, defenders, researcher…

That's quite the thread. It seems like a good chunk of posters didn't even begin to grasp the point.

Re: Discourse Is Not Going Closed Source

#30

Post by dirkc »

chrismorgan wrote: post #3

> I want to be fair to Cal.com here, because I don’t think they’re acting in bad faith. I just think the security argument is a convenient frame for decisions that are actually about something else. […] Framing a business decision as a security imperative does a disservice to the open-source ecosystem that helped Cal.com get to where they are. That sure sounds like bad faith to me.

This rest of the article contrasts the with "I don’t think they’re acting in bad faith"

This bit stands out to me:

> You can’t take five years of community contributions, close the gate, and claim you’re grateful. I don’t think it works that way.

I think it's safe to say that Sam is not impressed with the the Cal.com decision and the way they framed it.

Post reply on HN