It's inspiring how quickly ad tech devs can band together to completely remove all ads from their ad tech development environment.
n-gate worthy summary of this thread
Don't violate the prime directive.
NPM Bans Terminal Ads
261–270 of 377 posts
Re: NPM Bans Terminal Ads
#262Earlier quoted context omitted.
>You have people working mostly for free I think citation is needed here. Many big open source projects are created and maintained by the paid employees of big corporations.
This is an important point to consider. For large corporations, it is easier to hire a developer to work on a critical piece of open source software than it is to go through the approval process of sending money (no strings attached) to a particular individual.
Which is quite something considering the dog and pony show that is the recruiting process of most large orgs. One suspects that if OSS developers routinely offered to invoice for "software support" rather than requesting a donation, this would be a vastly superior option from the company's viewpoint compared to having to go through the expensive palaver of hiring.
Re: NPM Bans Terminal Ads
#263While 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.…
> Given the amount of value open source provides to for-profit companies (with the open source maintainers rarely getting any reciprocal value from the companies that profit off them), why is it so alarming to think that these maintainers might think of a clever idea like this to make a couple thousand bucks?
Because it's not a clever idea at all. First of all, open source software should stay true to what is is, which is free and open. If maintainers really wanted to profit off of this, they should have never made it free or at least offer some sort of pricing model that doesn't affect the essence of the project being open source (e.g., offering paid support), projects like Sidekiq having Sidekiq Pro. Users shouldn't be the one "paying" for open source software through the ads. This is making developers pay for the project indirectly.
DHH latest keynote from Railsconf 2019 hits the nail in the coffin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBwWbFpkltg
Re: NPM Bans Terminal Ads
#264NPM's move to ban the practice is unsurprising. Consider however that NPM has no qualms about showing various nag screens of their own, such as "a new version of NPM is available," etc. Perhaps they should consider taking leadership in the OSS funding space. "Hey, it looks like you're enjoying these packages x, y, and z! Click here to donate to your favorite OSS projects." Or something.
A software update notice cannot be considered as an ad, can it?
Parent said nag screen, not ad.
Re: NPM Bans Terminal Ads
#265While 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.…
>, why is it so alarming to think that these maintainers might think of a clever idea like this to make a couple thousand bucks? [...] But instead of attacking the guy for trying, I really wish the discussion were focussed on how the community of open-source consumers can contribute back to the open source ecosystem You're (possibly unintentionally) distorting/diverting the issue. Nobody is criticizing open source ma…
if the concrete implementation of trying to get money is unwanted and unexpected
Every method of funding open source either doesn't work or is unwanted, so arguments like "get paid, just not this way" are disingenuous. When that guy tries a different approach instead of ads, people will be attacking him just as much.
It's time to move the discussion on to "all possible funding methods are unpalatable, so what's the least bad method?"
Re: NPM Bans Terminal Ads
#266NPM's move to ban the practice is unsurprising. Consider however that NPM has no qualms about showing various nag screens of their own, such as "a new version of NPM is available," etc. Perhaps they should consider taking leadership in the OSS funding space. "Hey, it looks like you're enjoying these packages x, y, and z! Click here to donate to your favorite OSS projects." Or something.
A software update notice cannot be considered as an ad, can it?
It fits any reasonable definition of an ad that I can think of.
Re: NPM Bans Terminal Ads
#267Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those companies contribute back monumental open source projects that would simply never exist without the level of funding, organization, and real business knowledge that those companies provide. The amount of open-source code given away freely by FAANG and similar corporations is worth hundreds of billions of dollars to the wider community. Even much of the software itself is produced with open-source languages made…
Nobody is questioning that they give some software back but giving software back simply does not fund open source. Most people cannot convert their contributions into money as deftly as FAANG has converted 10,000s of people's contributions into a quarter trillion dollars. It does not fund the tools that power their current open source projects. It does not fund the tools their next open source projects will use. It d…
> Nobody is questioning that they give some software back but giving software back simply does not fund open source
As I already stated, yes, it does fund open source. That's literally what they're doing: spending funds on developing and maintaining open source code. Did they fund every transient piece of software in the technology stack? Of course not.
It does not fund the...
Corporate money funds all of those things you listed. No, not every single package that becomes popular, but many of them, including many informed by practical knowledge acquired through battle-tested experience operating such software in their businesses.
> western developers can't afford to work on open source unless it's at a FAANG company.
So what? If western developers can't afford to work on open-source software they shouldn't. I wouldn't expect anyone to work for free if they couldn't afford to do so.
Re: NPM Bans Terminal Ads
#268Earlier quoted context omitted.
But yet, part of the allure of hobby magazines, for instances, are the ads. Ads need not be scummy, and just because some are doesn't mean all are. Ads _can_ be primarily informational without being "scummy" or "sleazy". Sure, yes, most of the ad industry is currently about being manipulative and invasive, but it need not be that way. We, as a society, need to figure out how to stop it from being that way across the…
Advertisements are designed to make you feel informed, rather than to actually inform you. When a product is bad, inferior to the competition or just generally harmful to you (think: sugary soda pop ads), advertising professionals will promote it with just as much vim and vigor, if not more. (To the extent that bad products get more enthusiastic advertising, in a perverse sense viewing ads might actually make you a m…
Going back to an older post of mine (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20035005)
Here are some examples from a 2010 model railroader. https://photos.app.goo.gl/RvRzECgs7MaTo7tP8
Some, especially the Kato model Amtrak one, have some aspects of an aspirational ad, but I don't know if I'd condem them as such. They usually, as the Kato one has, information about the specific items that are now available and often some "ambiance" information that many hobbiests, especially people new to the hobby like to look at.
I don't mind ads like these as they're not designed to make you feel as though you need to purchase something to be better and they're not in a public space. They're they're to matter-of-factly says a service or product is available.
I could also show you the local pennysaver or Craigslist. All of those are also add, but they're not the "aspirational" kind. They're more matter-of-factly that someone is selling so (used) item, or provides some kind of service, or that there is a garage or estate sale at such-and-such address. How else would this information be made readily and easily available?
Re: NPM Bans Terminal Ads
#269While 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.…
Ads are a cancer upon the world, far worse than poor free software funding, and people are understandably dismayed at seeing that cancer spread, no matter how justifiable the reasons given.
Paid software is increasingly filled with ads, and I would argue it is precisely the absence of a profit motive that has kept FOSS software so virtuous. See the effect it had on app stores.
Re: NPM Bans Terminal Ads
#270Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody is questioning that they give some software back but giving software back simply does not fund open source. Most people cannot convert their contributions into money as deftly as FAANG has converted 10,000s of people's contributions into a quarter trillion dollars. It does not fund the tools that power their current open source projects. It does not fund the tools their next open source projects will use. It d…
> Nobody is questioning that they give some software back but giving software back simply does not fund open source As I already stated, yes , it does fund open source. That's literally what they're doing: spending funds on developing and maintaining open source code. Did they fund every transient piece of software in the technology stack? Of course not. It does not fund the... Corporate money funds all of those thin…
You mentioned the wealthiest 0.000001% of open source projects in a discussion about how the other 99.999999% need funding as some kind of proof FAANG are pulling their weight. Just their cash savings weigh about 2,500 tonnes so they're obviously not pulling their weight at all.
The so-what is software development evolution comes to a grinding halt while we wait for third-world and developing countries to hit the sweet spot where people can afford to pursue their art and afford the tools and connectivity it requires and afford the many years of learning to understand the steps between hello world and inventing kubernetes. Google didn't even invent kubernetes as much as they extrapolated to it from experience and open source.