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

All my new code will be closed-source from now on

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–118 of 118 posts

Re: All my new code will be closed-source from now on

#111

Post by pepa65 »

ptero wrote: post #87
jowea wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think free software was more about that about that. Open source always was about getting financially motivated companies onboard.

I am not absolutely sure, but I do not think so. Being old(ish) I recall in the early 90s Stallman advocating for (and mostly winning the argument in the tech circles at the time) open source as the primary tool for freedom to build things. With financial motivation possible, but completely orthogonal to the development of the open source software. And how his argument (he was also a strong proponent of freedom to fo…

Stallman was propagating the ideal of Free and Open Source Software, where the notion of Freedom was paramount. I think that is the Free the poster you are responding to was talking about, not as in Freeware (usable without paying, but not necessarily open source).

Re: All my new code will be closed-source from now on

#112

Post by pepa65 »

coldpie wrote: post #26
moltar wrote: post #3

This is a foreign position to me. I open sourced my code not to make money but because I saw that others can benefit from it. I never made money from open source. If I did my mental model would be that these are charitable donations, not an income stream I can rely on.

I worked for 13 years on open source software and I definitely did it to make money. Nothing wrong with trying to make money on open source software, it's just a different business model than proprietary. More consulting oriented than product oriented.

Nothing wrong with making money on your work, and if you work on open source, even better I think. I have been spending hours a week for decades working on FOSS, never got paid, so yes, that was (and still is) intentional charity.

Re: All my new code will be closed-source from now on

#113

Post by vidarh »

diego_moita wrote: post #101
vidarh wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The CCP isn't Marxist and doesn't claim to be. Deng basically copied parts of Lenins "New Economic Policy" of "limited capitalism" because he like Lenin realised they'd made a mistake in preempting dismantling of the market, in direct contradiction of the Marxist view that a socialist revolution requires a well developed capitalist economy, and Marx explicit warning against attempting socialism too soon. That's what…

> The CCP isn't Marxist and doesn't claim to be. This is just adorable! May I assume that the Cuban, North Korean, Laos and Vietnamese Communist parties aren't Marxist also? Naturally, same goes to former USSR, Khmer Rouge, etc

> This is just adorable!

If you think statements of facts are adorable, I get it is. Otherwise it is mostly quite telling as an indicator you do not have any actual arguments.

> May I assume that the Cuban, North Korean, Laos and Vietnamese Communist parties aren't Marxist also? Naturally, same goes to former USSR, Khmer Rouge, etc

Given they all reject core elements of Marxism, that's a reasonable assessment, with some differences to the degree with which they reject it. It does not mean that none of them draw in parts on Marxist thinking, but they all draw heavily on e.g. "democratic" centralism and the use of vanguard parties, and they all have a history of imprisoning and/or murdering people pushing Marxism and opposed to Marxism-Leninism (several of the parties you listed have also rejected significant parts of ML, setting themselves further apart, e.g. North Korea's Juche is more of an evolution of Stalinism and its nationalism)

Having had Marxist-Leninists gleefully tell me face to face that "people like me" belong in labour camps, the distinction rather matters to me on a personal level - ML'ers getting close to power would be a direct threat to my personal safety to the point I'd arm myself; actual Marxists would not.

Re: All my new code will be closed-source from now on

#114

Post by diego_moita »

vidarh wrote: post #113
diego_moita wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The CCP isn't Marxist and doesn't claim to be. This is just adorable! May I assume that the Cuban, North Korean, Laos and Vietnamese Communist parties aren't Marxist also? Naturally, same goes to former USSR, Khmer Rouge, etc

> This is just adorable! If you think statements of facts are adorable, I get it is. Otherwise it is mostly quite telling as an indicator you do not have any actual arguments. > May I assume that the Cuban, North Korean, Laos and Vietnamese Communist parties aren't Marxist also? Naturally, same goes to former USSR, Khmer Rouge, etc Given they all reject core elements of Marxism, that's a reasonable assessment, with s…

Ok, I get it. You consider yourself to be part of the noble lineage of "true" Marxists. This is a common belief in all zealots, from the religious ones to the political ones.

But the truth is: that matters only to you. Like it or not, those regimes are what Marxism becomes in practice. Take the "scientific" approach that Marxism claims to follow and see the "objective conditions", see things as they are and what they became, not what you want them to be.

Whenever it tries to abolish capitalism, 140 years of history say that Marxism degenerates into tyranny. This is objective history.

Re: All my new code will be closed-source from now on

#115

Post by diego_moita »

peepee1982 wrote: post #86
diego_moita wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair enough: the Chinese Marxists seem to love their robots, a lot. But, also, they handle all that automation to the capitalists. Because capitalists are simply much better at doing it. So it seems that, even when it succeeds, socialism can't really get rid of "the system", after all.

You are conflating Marxism with China, which is just a state-capitalist powerhouse using the exact same model of enclosure and rent-seeking we are arguing against. China doesn't "hand over" automation because capitalists are better at it; the state simply socializes the risk and R&D before letting private proxies handle the commercialization. Citing a state-backed monopoly system to prove "the market" is the only way…

China is Marxist, as much as South Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, USSR, Khmer Rouge, Laos, etc. This is objective history. These are the "objective conditions", as Marxists say. These are facts and nothing else exists besides that.

Your idealistic, romantic version of Marxism only exists in your head. In 140 years of history, Marxism only generated the Marxist states I listed above.

Re: All my new code will be closed-source from now on

#116

Post by yencabulator »

midnitewarrior wrote: post #72
conartist6 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think I do need to replace it to gain a competitive advantage against an incumbent the size of Microsoft. But to replace it at all I would have to build something that is, at least in a few ways, much, much better, otherwise people wouldn't have any reason to give me a moment's consideration. This market has to be won over from the bottom up. But yes, even though git is as FOSS as FOSS can be, to me it's still a cr…

Vendetta code is not going to get you far. git works perfectly well. git is an afterthought. Engineers need to know git the same way they need to know markdown or SQL. The complexity of git is becoming less relevant by the day as coding agents take over coding responsibilities. If your git replacement is optimized for LLM use in ways that git cannot be optimized, you may get some traction. By all conventional measure…

Also, the git killer is already here, already open source, and mostly just a different front for the same old git data model: https://jj-vcs.dev/

Re: All my new code will be closed-source from now on

#117

Post by vidarh »

diego_moita wrote: post #114
vidarh wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is just adorable! If you think statements of facts are adorable, I get it is. Otherwise it is mostly quite telling as an indicator you do not have any actual arguments. > May I assume that the Cuban, North Korean, Laos and Vietnamese Communist parties aren't Marxist also? Naturally, same goes to former USSR, Khmer Rouge, etc Given they all reject core elements of Marxism, that's a reasonable assessment, with s…

Ok, I get it. You consider yourself to be part of the noble lineage of "true" Marxists. This is a common belief in all zealots, from the religious ones to the political ones. But the truth is: that matters only to you. Like it or not, those regimes are what Marxism becomes in practice. Take the "scientific" approach that Marxism claims to follow and see the "objective conditions", see things as they are and what they…

> Ok, I get it. You consider yourself to be part of the noble lineage of "true" Marxists. This is a common belief in all zealots, from the religious ones to the political ones.

You're jumping to conclusions you have no basis for. I don't consider myself to be part of any "noble lineage" or "true" anything. I am, however, capable of seeing the difference between fundamentally different ideologies without buying into Bolshevik propaganda bullshit.

> Whenever it tries to abolish capitalism, 140 years of history say that Marxism degenerates into tyranny. This is objective history.

You're sounding like an orthodox Marxist when you're talking about "objective history". The notion of "objective history" is ludicrous. But, yes, when vanguard revolutionary groups tries to overthrow anything, you should expect tyranny. That is if anything also a Marxist view - the notion of a vanguard group rather than expanding class consciousness would succeed in successfully changing/replacing capitalism is fundamentally at odds with Marxism.

Post reply on HN