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

Gem.coop

gem.coop

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 331 posts

Re: Gem.coop

#171

Post by x3n0ph3n3 »

phoronixrly wrote: post #169
x3n0ph3n3 wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They were using the name "rubygems" to fund-raise for not-"rubygems."

But how is this a conflict? Both are not-for-profit projects with the same goal? How can one even use the term 'competition' in this context? What if the Ruby community embraces a new and better package manager? This is, again, a net win for the Ruby community, and both projects strive for that?

It doesn't really matter if it's a non-profit. How do you think your company would react if you started raising money using their name?

Re: Gem.coop

#172

Post by shadowgovt »

hombre_fatal wrote: post #158
shadowgovt wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think right off the bat since they chose .coop as their TLD, a lot of corporate firewalls auto-block them and they have immediately decided to fight an uphill battle to get allow-listed to be a gem repo. This does not bode well for the team having the socio-technical savviness to see this project through.

How will anything ever change we're still guilted into thinking about crappy default corporate firewalls when choosing a TLD? Though there's no way that this is something you care about, cmon.

Most places seem to manage.

But thinking that they can disregard all prior Internet history and just slam into the situation with no concern about what came before is pretty on-brand for a project in the Ruby ecosystem.

Re: Gem.coop

#173

Post by marknutter »

tensor wrote: post #135
steve_gh wrote: post #25

I'm really pleased to see this happening, but sad that it has come to this. What I'd really like to see is a whole bunch of people acting more professionally. Who you pray to, who you vote for, and who you sleep with are irrelevant to a professional context - and open source development is a professional context. So everyone needs to keep their professional and personal lives separate. I know that at best I would be…

I've been in the "keep work and politics" separate camp most of my life. However, with the lines that have been crossed recently, where literal democracy and freedom are at stake, I don't think people have the luxury of keeping work and politics separate any longer. Fascism is bad and people cannot be silent.

[flagged]

Re: Gem.coop

#174

Post by marknutter »

giraffe_lady wrote: post #106
nathanaldensr wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Completely agreed. Sorry, other folks, but you have no right to gatekeep my speech in any way in a professional context. Are you a family member? Then sure, we can have a discussion. Am I a member of your private club or otherwise dependent on your approval of my thoughts or beliefs? Then let's talk. Otherwise, leave me alone. You (the collective you) don't get to decide what I am and am not allowed to think and beli…

Nobody is constraining your beliefs or expressions of them. People are exercising their own individual right not to associate with people who express certain beliefs.

Ah. So just good old fashioned bigotry.

Re: Gem.coop

#175

Post by soraminazuki »

IshKebab wrote: post #21
jmcgough wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NYC has roughly the same stats - 40% of the residents there are foreign-born. This is more to do with low birth rates by natives, so population growth in NYC and London is entirely driven by immigration. The biggest problem is that it's too expensive for most people to have and raise kids in major cities. What was more troubling to me was that he called the Tommy Robinson rallies "heartwarming". TR was a member of an…

> he has written some other really vile things about transgender people. Do you have a link? I suspect these "really vile things" will turn out to be not so vile (like JKR), just things you don't agree with. > I'd like to leave my identity home and discuss software engineering and interesting technical ideas. DHH has made that impossible. Really? Did he talk about politics at this Ruby conference? Seems like it is yo…

> I suspect these "really vile things" will turn out to be not so vile (like JKR)

"Not so vile" things like spreading lies about a female Olymics Boxer's gender, calling her terrible names, and inciting her online followers to harass her? She not only bullies transgender individuals but also targets other women who don't meet her own standards of femininity. If you have no problems with people like that, no wonder you can't fathom why the Ruby community has trouble accepting similar people with open arms.

Re: Gem.coop

#176

Post by stanislavb »

soraminazuki wrote: post #101
nomdep wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It kind of feels like this fork is the better-maintained piece of software now. Maybe, but I feel the value of the index is the storage and bandwidth and not the software itself, isn't it? Could an index work by just being a search engine for gems, storing the hashes, but pointing to external resources, like GitHub repos, for the download itself?

Trustworthiness is far more important for a package manager. No amount of storage or bandwidth can compensate for an untrustworthy package manager.

With this is in place. A ".coop" domain does not signal trustworthiness. It's more like a childish revenge attempt. Don't get me wrong. I think it's a great idea for the original maintainers to begin work on a form. However, they could have chosen a better domain name.

Re: Gem.coop

#177

Post by marknutter »

simianparrot wrote: post #35
phoronixrly wrote: post #4

I hope they tackle the actual main issue with Rubygems -- lack of any sort of code signing... (I know the functionality exists, but it's not required to publish in Rubygems, and off by default on gem install. In other words it's as if it doesn't exist) The fash problem in the Rails ecosystem is next on the list, and I hope there is community consensus to fork this as well.

What does “fash problem” mean?

That's the part where the term "fascist" is misused to smear somebody they disagree with. It can be safely ignored.

Re: Gem.coop

#179

Post by baggy_trough »

ilikepi wrote: post #80
baggy_trough wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I personally cannot think of a new ruby gems or bundler feature from the past decade that I noticed or cared about. That isn't to say that there aren't any; I just don't know what they are.

There have been several releases with incremental but still notable performance improvements. The overall cadence has been pretty steady, intentionally targeting roughly one minor release per year since 2019-ish, with handfuls of quality of life improvements in each. Arguably RubyGems and Bundler are infrastructure, so the major feature is stability. What sort of big feature are you imagining is missing from your dep…

That's basically my point. I'm not missing anything, so I'm happy if it just gets small / stability fixes, which doesn't seem like it needs a six member maintainer group. That team should go off and do a great job with 'rv' or whatever the next brand new idea is, and just let rubygems sit there with minor updates, same as we do for the ruby logger or date class.

Re: Gem.coop

#180

Post by mijoharas »

stanislavb wrote: post #176
soraminazuki wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trustworthiness is far more important for a package manager. No amount of storage or bandwidth can compensate for an untrustworthy package manager.

With this is in place. A ".coop" domain does not signal trustworthiness. It's more like a childish revenge attempt. Don't get me wrong. I think it's a great idea for the original maintainers to begin work on a form. However, they could have chosen a better domain name.

I saw someone else saying something about the domain name, but I didn't really give it a second thought when I read it.

Can you explain what the issue is?

Post reply on HN