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

221–230 of 331 posts

Re: Gem.coop

#221

Post by ajb »

hatthew wrote: post #207
florkbork wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

My first-order heuristic is that legitimate websites tend to get one of the top TLDs (.com/.org, maybe .net/.io). In general, why should I trust domain_name.xyz over domain_name.com? There are obvious caveats, e.g. it doesn't matter as much for generic words like "gem" and for personal sites that I don't trust much in the first place. In this case, 3 seconds of critical thinking makes it clear that they have a plausi…

Using .coop is actually a costly signal that you are, in fact and in law, a cooperative; and intend to stay one; since non-cooperatives are not allowed to occupy those domains. Dot Org, while it's used by a lot of well known organisations, is an open domain that anyone can register in.

Of course, it's also true that many people won't have the spare time to find that out.

Re: Gem.coop

#222

Post by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF »

IshKebab wrote: post #212
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I haven't misunderstood anything. You have misunderstood why people use the term "extremism". > Mainstream views can't be extreme by definition. Of course they can; mainstream views can't be uncommon by definition. Extreme doesn't strictly mean uncommon (not even in a political context), it is also used to mean "high degree", which can include distance from political centrism but can also include, e.g. , frustratio…

> various online "challenges" like the "ice bucket challenge" are extreme Ok I think you just have a very abnormal (extreme even?) definition of the word "extreme". In a political context it literally means "far from the norm". His views are not far from the norm, as much as you might hate that. (I'm not a huge fan either but I'm not going to distort reality to make myself feel better.)

> In a political context it literally means "far from the norm".

No, this is simply what you want it to mean, keeping in mind you're trying to tell other people what they mean with their word choice. Extreme views can be normal and mainstream and typical. There are many normalized-but-extreme views in current mainstream politics.

> Ok I think you just have a very abnormal (extreme even?) definition of the word "extreme".

Pouring a bucket of ice water on your head to bring attention to something is extreme. Like, it's over-the-top and exaggerated. You can disagree but that's kinda moot: someone isn't strictly wrong that it's extreme, you just disagree. You still didn't address the greater point that extreme, as it's being used, is orthogonal to mainstream.

But I guess I can link to a dictionary so you can see that I have a pretty normal (and mild) definition of the word in question. I hope you don't cherry-pick definition 1c, ignoring definitions 1a and 1b, which are, of course, valid.

Maybe 4 is the best definition, seeing as it gives "the extreme political left" as an example usage. It's not obvious to me how "advanced and thoroughgoing" means "not mainstream", though. I wouldn't mind an explanation.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/extreme

Re: Gem.coop

#224

Post by phoronixrly »

lr0 wrote: post #218
phoronixrly wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've seen golang's package... situation?... and you still think switching to Git is a good idea?

What "situation"?

Let's review for example Traefik's dependency list: https://github.com/traefik/traefik/blob/master/go.mod

1. Heavy dependency on Github. AKA Microsoft owns much of the golang ecosystem. Not just the source... The package distribution as well!

2. Many packages are referencing a git (short!) commit hash instead of a version. It still boggles my mind that this is an acceptable practice. Not to mention that git tags can be deleted and recreated... A pinnacle of secure package distribution practices.

3. Stuff like ambiguous imports because apparently nothing enforces proper go.mod files? They are not packages to be compiled after all, they're just repos with some conventional structure (optional)...

Mind you, this is popular production-grade software...

I think this is much worse than even node packages, let alone bundler and rubygems...

Re: Gem.coop

#225

Post by monkaiju »

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 view ".coop" quite highly given it is restricted to actual, legally recognized, cooperatives. Its definitionally more meaningful and "trustworthy" than .com or .org

Re: Gem.coop

#226

Post by varispeed »

eek2121 wrote: post #210
varispeed wrote: post #206

> initially his own, but eventually others—by paying themselves a market hourly rate This is massively flawed thinking. So called "market rate" is actually a tool for value extraction from the workers and is not connected in any shape or form with what they create for company they work at. As corporations refer to this as if it was a consensus (as in developer should earn $x an hour), they pay this much and workers h…

hard disagree. For a project like this, all members should be paid a fair, but not "get rich" sum. There are companies out there that pay EVERYONE the same salary, all the way from CEO to janitor. Mysteriously, those companies don't have folks trying to hijack things, because nobody benefits. It's almost like removing money from the equation stops all the nasty stuff that happens inside organizations. Who'd have thou…

"Market rate" is not neutral. It is a wage‑fixing device that standardises labour pay while letting profits float to shareholders. Treating it as holy writ is how extraction is hidden in plain sight.

Flat salaries do not remove politics. With unequal equity and control, a flat wage simply disciplines workers while investors keep uncapped upside. If money is the poison, start by flattening carry, liquidation preferences and board vetoes. Otherwise you have only flattened one side.

Capping founder pay is class gatekeeping. It selects for people with savings or family safety nets and pushes working‑class founders out. Shaming those who take cash once they create surplus protects investor optics, not fairness.

Equal pay only makes sense when ownership, risk and power are equal. Without that, "equal pay" is theatre.

Re: Gem.coop

#227

Post by salzig »

zdragnar wrote: post #123
salzig wrote: post #118

Just a thought of mine: why don’t we switch fully to git? Commit signing, tag signing, Decentralize. Doesn’t that sound like a good alternativ?

Someone has to run the git server. Then, someone has to find the git server to pull each gem from, since not every git server is likely to be up-to-date with the each gem, or the correct version. Since these are all decentralized, each individual owner of a git server has to independently scale as more people start using each one. The benefit to being centralized is... everything is in one place. Everything scales at…

So GitHub would be one option. Developers already discover all kind of things there. And each gem can still be provided by its “main repository”, but I don’t mind on whatever domain that repository is located. Somewhat how container images are referenced/distributed already. I think go already does it like that too.

having a decentralized, and maybe sometime unavailable, infrastructure would make more people think about the problem and maybe brings us more stable solutions than we have now.

Re: Gem.coop

#228

Post by salzig »

pornel wrote: post #134
salzig wrote: post #118

Just a thought of mine: why don’t we switch fully to git? Commit signing, tag signing, Decentralize. Doesn’t that sound like a good alternativ?

The git protocol is more complex and harder to scale. It's especially wasteful if people are going to redownload all packages every time their amnesiac CI runs. Single-file archives are much easier to distribute. Digests and signatures have standard algorithms, not unique to git. Key/identity management is the hard part, but git doesn't solve it for you (if you don't confuse git with GitHub).

Going crazy: we cold also adopt the container registry api for distributing gems, similar to how helm charts are also distributed nower days.

Re: Gem.coop

#229

Post by dismalaf »

salzig wrote: post #118

Just a thought of mine: why don’t we switch fully to git? Commit signing, tag signing, Decentralize. Doesn’t that sound like a good alternativ?

Well, rubygems (the software) can pull from any git repository. So we kind of have it already anyway.
Post reply on HN