NPM Bans Terminal Ads • Hacker News Board

Re: NPM Bans Terminal Ads

#151

Post by JonathanMerklin » Fri, Aug 30, 2019, 4:10 PM UTC

0xffff2 wrote: post #135

rrss wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vim isn't ad-supported. Vim has one messsage that you might consider an ad, and the money doesn't support vim's development, it goes to charity. I think it also used to be possible to donate to vim directly to support the development, but I think that money goes to charity now too. (I personally don't think "help poor children in Uganda by donating" is an ad).

Where exactly is this message? I use Vim fairly often and I've never seen it...

:help license

I think in earlier vim versions, you could see a message if you opened vim without a file (vim -u NONE # to prevent .vimrc from doing whatever shenanigans you've set up)

Re: NPM Bans Terminal Ads

#152

Post by hnruss » Fri, Aug 30, 2019, 4:11 PM UTC

I don’t see the point of CLI ads for open source software. If the maintainers want money for it, they should simply require a paid license for commercial use.

Re: NPM Bans Terminal Ads

#153

Post by make3 » Fri, Aug 30, 2019, 4:12 PM UTC

cj wrote: post #11

While I don't particularly like the idea of stuffing ads into npm logs, I don't have the same visceral negative reaction that many people have in these HN threads on this topic. The overwhelming majority of the people complaining about this are well-paid tech workers writing code for well-funded companies that profit off of open source code without providing any reciprocal value to the open source projects in return.…

no one has forced them to do this if they didn't want to. they are breaking the expectations and goal behind open source. They're more than welcome to do something else if they want to make money.

Re: NPM Bans Terminal Ads

#154

Post by langitbiru » Fri, Aug 30, 2019, 4:12 PM UTC

ydnaclementine wrote: post #13

I know it's not a npm package, but would the donation message for kids in Uganda when you started vim be considered no bueno with these rules? I guess it's not an ad technically

The important differences are Vim is much more useful and complex open source project, and it is an advertisement for charity (most people will give pass for this thing).

Re: NPM Bans Terminal Ads

#155

Post by reallydude » Fri, Aug 30, 2019, 4:12 PM UTC

ryanlol wrote: post #56

Nasrudith wrote: post #21

Really ads in a terminal is a needless attack vector that is a dumpster fire for security that is part of the reason /why/ they have so many detractors.

This makes no sense at all.

If the ad makes a remote call during execution (for an dynamic ad serve), it's an attack vector. There is always custom ad code for analytics that adserves use to fill (the ad placement space) and report back, called an admanager. As an advertiser, you can upload your own admanager (that that has your own custom code.

Reading the code of the NPM package will not typically help with understanding what it's going to do, because of the ad ecosystem, which guarantees running code you have never seen.

I could understand banning dynamic ad injection and telemetry. My ethical line would be if a package manager were to ban static links/symbols displayed in a README and that's not what NPM aims for, so it's fine by me.

Re: NPM Bans Terminal Ads

#156

Post by detuur » Fri, Aug 30, 2019, 4:12 PM UTC

tempguy9999 wrote: post #98

jasode wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>This is an unfair go at the poster. He said "I'm not arguing that npm install logs should be packed full of ads (it shouldn't)." That's clear as can be. Please reread my reply to OP carefully and notice I did not say he endorsed NPM ads. Instead, I specifically disagreed with his suggestion to redirect the discussion away from the NPM ads to the general topic of open-source funding. >He's asking the same question I…

you said > However, if the concrete implementation of trying to get money is unwanted and unexpected ads, then the correct focus of discussion is the criticism of that ad delivery method But he'd already said, prior to that > I'm not arguing that npm install logs should be packed full of ads (it shouldn't). He'd already said no to them; you're both in agreement. There's nothing to argue about. Having agreed that nobo…

Please stop having "you said he said" discussions. If someone clarifies their position that they meant to say something else than you read, please accept it in good faith and don't see this as an invitation to hark back to their previous messages.

This comment is not aimed at you specifically, but everyone in this comment thread who engages in this pointless arguing.

Re: NPM Bans Terminal Ads

#157

Post by simplecomplex » Fri, Aug 30, 2019, 4:15 PM UTC

lioeters wrote: post #74

duxup wrote: post #61

I haven't really run into any. Has anyone run into some unexpectedly?

Yup, just this week I noticed the npm package `core-js` used by the Babel transpiler was polluting my build logs. It listed opencollective and patreon as possible channels of support. That I didn't mind so much, but then there was a message (repeated countless times in the logs) that the author was looking for a job. That's just spam in my terminal, unacceptable. Background and heated discussion in the following GitH…

It’s not spam, anymore than your comment is. It’s a message from the author of the free software you’re using. Asking for a job.

If that offends you you should get over yourself. How entitled and spoiled you are to think you should have a right to use their software for free and not be bothered by a short message from the author.

Re: NPM Bans Terminal Ads

#158

Post by wvenable » Fri, Aug 30, 2019, 4:16 PM UTC

nothrabannosir wrote: post #101

I know this is a controversial opinion and I know it won’t directly solve the issue at hand, but it’s related and it addresses some of the concerns raised by many people in this thread: how do we get open source the funding it needs? Consider a world where the norm is not MIT/BSD but GPL dual licensed with MIT for a fee. This would give back control to maintainers of a library, and it would allow people without funds…

> how do we get open source the funding it needs?

Has anyone considered that open source / free software is just fundamentally incompatible with capitalism? Society already has plenty of ways to fund projects -- we even created entire legal constructs, like copyright, to facilitate this very thing.

The zero-cost ability to copy software and mutate it (if you have the source) is at the heart of the movement. As is the realization that we can collectively build something that benefits everyone. Money doesn't have to figure into this.

Of course, plenty of developers have tried (and succeeded) at using free software for capitalistic ends. But I don't think it follows that free software should, or needs to be, funded the way that we purchase other software or how Google or Facebook funds their software.

Re: NPM Bans Terminal Ads

#159

Post by pixelbath » Fri, Aug 30, 2019, 4:17 PM UTC

zelon88 wrote: post #106

cj wrote: post #11

While I don't particularly like the idea of stuffing ads into npm logs, I don't have the same visceral negative reaction that many people have in these HN threads on this topic. The overwhelming majority of the people complaining about this are well-paid tech workers writing code for well-funded companies that profit off of open source code without providing any reciprocal value to the open source projects in return.…

I release a ton of my work with open source licensing and I've never thought of it as a revenue stream. If people are financially burdened by making their project open-source; then don't make it open source. Donating something to the community and then getting offended when nobody reciprocates is disingenuous. It's part of the problem with "freemium" software these days where developers think I should be indebted to…

>If people are financially burdened by making their project open-source; then don't make it open source.

This is largely my position. I view contributing code to open source projects almost as altruism. I don't expect compensation or reward, and I do it out of a general feeling of wanting to contribute something unselfish to the world. The fact that some open source projects are important is a secondary concern; I know I don't consider any of my FOSS code to be important to many people other than myself.

That said, my primary income comes from working on proprietary closed-source software. I don't think I've ever interviewed for a position with a company that contributes most of its code to FOSS, so I've really never seen that model work in-person.

Re: NPM Bans Terminal Ads

#160

Post by chessturk » Fri, Aug 30, 2019, 4:18 PM UTC

jeoeo929 wrote: post #113

cj wrote: post #11

While I don't particularly like the idea of stuffing ads into npm logs, I don't have the same visceral negative reaction that many people have in these HN threads on this topic. The overwhelming majority of the people complaining about this are well-paid tech workers writing code for well-funded companies that profit off of open source code without providing any reciprocal value to the open source projects in return.…

This says more about the state of society than anything else Profits are up, inequality is up. That’s by design. We should be working on making it so people can eat and be healthy, and not have to be reduced to such bottom feeding tactics. But everyone thinks it’s mean and petty to tell kids of dead rich people they don’t get to inherit all the power. If I learned anything getting an MS in mathematical linguistics: e…

I'll second this downvoted opinion. The mismatch between economic good created by and economic incentive to create OSS is just tragic from a hard numbers perspective.

How do you fix it though? A large funding program? If the state or private industry were the backer, how do you prevent manipulation? The only viable models (that spring to my mind) are Spanish-Anarchist type stuff of generally funded unions of technical workers, but that doesn't feel likely.