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

181–190 of 331 posts

Re: Gem.coop

#181

Post by florkbork »

pdntspa wrote: post #122

Is this not an overreaction to the rubygems rubycentral fiasco?

No.

Imagine if someone came into your house and changed all of the locks on you/your family, because "security". You had built that house from your original designs but the other party claims they own it now because they happen to manage a series of rental listings for houses built to your design. You had even made it so the plans could be copied and modified in private; if "security" were a real concern with about 10 minutes effort to do so.

Would you agree that it is right, do nothing? Or would you rebuild something new, given how little time it takes to copy the plans.

Swap "house design" for "software project" and "rental listings" for "running an instance of your software project" and you have the current situation.

Developers are free to choose the party they trust more.

Re: Gem.coop

#182

Post by mijoharas »

x3n0ph3n3 wrote: post #168
mijoharas wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a strange suspicion. Why?

Because many mass-resigned unless Andre was re-instated.

I think many mass resigned when their commit access was taken away from their own project by a company that doesn't have a right to do that.

Some people might consider that a dick move.

Re: Gem.coop

#183

Post by lbhdc »

spit2wind wrote: post #91
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.

Really? Maybe I'm naive, but why would .coop be blocked?

It is pretty common that "weird" tlds get blocked more or less whole sale in places you might not expect.

The reason is spam. Before these can get wide spread "normal" adoption they can be heavily used by spammers. Its hard to say if that is because they have desirable look-a-likes available, or if its because the first year is offered at a deep discount. So, systems will get flooded, and on inspection they will see that they don't have any legit traffic from those tlds and will whole sale block them.

.xyz is kind of infamous for being in this situation. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28554400

I have no idea if that applies to .coop though.

Re: Gem.coop

#184

Post by shadowgovt »

hiimkeks wrote: post #26
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…

If who you vote for will put me into a torture camp (or otherwise devalues my life or personhood), then I can't work with you, so no it is not irrelevant. (neither the "me" nor the "you" here refer to you or me personally ofc.)

I think the salient meta-concept here is "Open source development is an inherently collaborative enterprise, and if people cannot collaborate, it stifles creation of open source projects and software."

There may very well simply be political eras where the floor of trust isn't there for open source to spring forward by leaps and bounds.

Re: Gem.coop

#185

Post by soraminazuki »

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.

What? Which part of the word "co-op" sounds like a "childish revenge attempt"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative

It's a word that nicely captures their objectives.

Re: Gem.coop

#186

Post by shadowgovt »

marknutter wrote: post #174
giraffe_lady wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Generally, bigotry is bias based on immutable traits. Beliefs are not immutable.

Re: Gem.coop

#187

Post by florkbork »

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.

Read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.coop

Think about all of the organisational structures you know of.

Then ask yourself how is a cooperative fundamentally untrustworthy?

Re: Gem.coop

#188

Post by tenderlove »

steveklabnik wrote: post #145
nomdep wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When Ruby Together first launched in 2015, the website suggested donations went to pay "our team" (...) This resulted in a nonzero number of donors believing they were funding the work of people like Steve Klabnik, Aaron Patterson, and Sarah Mei, when in fact only Andre was being paid at the time. This a fact. By this alone I don't think Andre Arko is an honest person.

Back in the day, nobody ever had said to me that they believed I was earning money from Ruby Together. This whole thing was speculation at best. And regardless, once it was suggested that this may be a possibility, it was immediately changed to be unambiguous. André is absolutely a standup individual. I have tried to stay in good terms with the other people involved in this (except DHH), but this claim was always rid…

This absolutely happened and is not speculation. I can't find the emails from the individuals that emailed me, but I did find my email to the board of directors asking that the website language be changed because people had pinged me thinking I would be getting money, or that the money would go to fund rubygems.org.

At the time I'd sent the email I was unaware Ruby Together was on HN front page (and that's why people were pinging me)

Re: Gem.coop

#189

Post by florkbork »

shadowgovt wrote: post #172
hombre_fatal wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ah yes, "slam in" to a situation is definitely the correct terminology for forking a project that was seized from you by a hostile party.

Re: Gem.coop

#190

Post by lawilli »

soraminazuki wrote: post #185
stanislavb wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What? Which part of the word "co-op" sounds like a "childish revenge attempt"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative It's a word that nicely captures their objectives.

Maybe they read it like “coup”?
Post reply on HN