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

241–250 of 331 posts

Re: Gem.coop

#241

Post by lazerwalker »

varispeed wrote: post #226
eek2121 wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 preferenc…

This project is or will be a worker-owned co-op, as evidenced by the strict requirements placed on anyone who registers a .coop domain name. I imagine at least equal ownership (if not risk and power) is a given in this specific instance, and profits will explicitly not flow upwards to shareholders who are not also workers.

Re: Gem.coop

#242

Post by marknutter »

erxam wrote: post #199
marknutter wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Oh, of course. To a right-winger, safety is bigotry and hatred is love. Of course, how else could it ever be. Do you really care about freedom if you don't let white nationalists abuse everyone and everything in their power all the time?

[flagged]

Re: Gem.coop

#243

Post by marknutter »

jaredcwhite wrote: post #205
marknutter wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

If you say something like “if you invoke the word "fascism" in the context of today's politics, your opinion is immediately worthless”, your opinion is immediately worthless.

Do you really not understand how unhinged you sound when you resort to such histrionics?

Re: Gem.coop

#244

Post by woodruffw »

baggy_trough wrote: post #179
ilikepi wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It seems unrealistic to believe that packaging infrastructure can just “sit there,” particularly in light of changing expectations around the bare minimum a packaging ecosystem should do to protect its users. I think a more reasonable assumption would be that the (former) RubyGems team did a good job, which translated to boring normality for you.

Re: Gem.coop

#246

Post by krainboltgreene »

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…

> My first-order heuristic is that legitimate websites tend to get one of the top TLDs (.com/.org, maybe .net/.io)

This is so funny to hear after 18 years in the west coast silicon-valley lead tech industry. All of the app, io, tv, tech, guru, and now ai I've seen and only when it's "coop" does anyone complain.

Re: Gem.coop

#247

Post by krainboltgreene »

baggy_trough wrote: post #179
ilikepi wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> so I'm happy if it just gets small / stability fixes

Seems like you're the ideal consumer for this new service, since it actually has people who can do that.

Re: Gem.coop

#248

Post by krainboltgreene »

lbhdc wrote: post #183
spit2wind wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

coop has around 12 years of age on xyz at least.

Re: Gem.coop

#249

Post by wlonkly »

lbhdc wrote: post #183
spit2wind wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

.xyz is open registration and is known to be a spam/abuse source. .coop is restricted to legally-formed cooperatives. Apples and oranges.

Re: Gem.coop

#250

Post by wlonkly »

shadowgovt wrote: post #198
florkbork wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I mean regarding the choice of TLD. Forking the package repository ecosystem I fully understand the incentives; it just strikes me as a very Ruby-ecosystem thing to just assume that `.coop` is a good enough TLD with no consequences for using it relative to choosing to use .org, .com, or .net.

Is there evidence that corporate firewalls commonly block .coop?
Post reply on HN