11–20 of 35 posts
For me the Google results are again at #1. Isn't it just a temporary thing that search engines rank you down but you quickly regain popularity as soon people link the new one and they notice traffic?
I don't know these days ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
> Media outlets don’t care about OSS repo acquisitions (and probably nobody else does either) I don't want to be mean, but I'm no surprised by this.
What does "OSS repo acquisition" even mean?
I don't know why they'd report on it in startup-speak like this, I doubt investors will care. Must be an ad.
Why?
A lot of times I faced with page 404 when clicked GitHub links that have been moved.
Isn't it good idea to do it like that - Move repo to new org (to move stats and activity) - Create repo with the same name that are fork of a target repo - Update readme to explain repo was moved - Archive the repo to place a warning on top of the repo
This way make users have to click link in original github repo, to go on your repo.
So it would be a problem if you need to show a numbers and you need to fake activity. But if you don't need fake activity, it is not a problem, because a real people who really looking for solution will be able to click one more link.
On the other hand, this way ensure that whole content will be available by indexed links.
How to prevent 404 and why people still faces with it on GitHub?
> Media outlets don’t care about OSS repo acquisitions (and probably nobody else does either) I don't want to be mean, but I'm no surprised by this.
What does "OSS repo acquisition" even mean?
Hey, at least you got the most important bit right ;) > One thing we did get right: maintainer buy-in. The repo had more than just the creator maintaining it, so we had real conversations and planning sessions with maintainers before making changes. We were transparent, kept them in the loop, and appreciated the support. I guess that SEO is also important somewhat. But if the product itself is good, which I assume it…
> One thing we did get right: maintainer buy-in. The repo had more than just the creator maintaining it, so we had real conversations and planning sessions with maintainers before making changes. We were transparent, kept them in the loop, and appreciated the support. "Maintainer buy-in" sounds kind of misleading, unless they actually paid the other maintainers too, and I do not get the impression from that point tha…
Reading this felt like visiting an alien planet. The software is MIT-licensed. All the talk of “buying” it and “ROI”, SEO, etc was just depressing and shows how utterly poisoned the culture around software has become.
Something feels a little off about calling it an "open source repo" rather than an "open source project".
Owning a popular repository that your audience is engaged with is valuable because they’re using your free software: you create loyal users that you can then sell to. A successful open source project operated by your company is valuable as a lead generator. The repository itself has no value. Open source by business (this strategy) is just freemium for software.
Why they thought announcing the acquisition of a repository would be of interest to anyone is beyond me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does "OSS repo acquisition" even mean?
They paid and hired the developer of an open source program for their AI startup to give them control over it. I don't know why they'd report on it in startup-speak like this, I doubt investors will care. Must be an ad.