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

Sorry everybody, I failed with you

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 357 posts

Re: Sorry everybody, I failed with you

#301

Post by hinkley »

supportlocal4h wrote: post #139
altf4 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. I've been working on a Go library for 8 years now that I'm sure is used by quite some people and companies, and I've been close to burnout and letting it go at least twice. I'm super happy when people just "Buy me a coffee"--not for the coffee but for the feedback you get that someone is using your project, so it's valuable for someone. I'm very grateful for that, even without financial support. I think GitH…

There are a lot of facets to open source contributions. One big facet is the whole itch-scratching thing. If you know longer itch, stop scratching. That's ok. Maybe when you stop scratching, it will start to itch again for you or for someone else. If nobody steps up, it just means it doesn't itch enough. Abandonware is not such a bad thing. It served its purpose for a season, then the world moved on. Nobody's out the…

That sounds good in theory but it doesn't compose.

Maybe only a few people are using your library directly, but most use it as part of some larger library. That library has a continuity problem now.

Re: Sorry everybody, I failed with you

#302

Post by sodality2 »

young_unixer wrote: post #282

And Github still doesn't allow you to disable pull requests or issues in a repository. If I had an open source project, I would not publish it on Githib precisely for this reason. Open source doesn't necessarily imply open development, or horizontal organization, or constant support, or anything. It just implies that the source is open. Plus, on the Internet it's very hard to tell when someone is demanding something…

I think issues are a great way to get people who are willing to maintain it, together and working on forking and getting on a single repo. Completely cutting it off is a bad idea. Perhaps disable notifications and pin an issue saying "I can no longer work on this project, feel free to fork it" and if people fork and good-faith maintain it, perhaps list it on the Readme or pinned issue.

Re: Sorry everybody, I failed with you

#303

Post by johnnyanmac »

apocalypstyx wrote: post #284
dabockster wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is neither free nor open by either the OSI or the FSF's definitions. In the famous words of Peter Griffin, "OH MY GOD WHO THE [expletive] CARES?!!" If someone isn't being paid for their work, then any version of OSS isn't really sustainable long term.

> In the famous words of Peter Griffin, "OH MY GOD WHO THE [expletive] CARES?!!" The definitions of these terms have existed for decades. Trying to confuse or conflate them is just a slight of hand to generally disingenuous ends. Very little stops people from selling products under whatever terms they want. If they are honest, they can call their product what it is: proprietary. Otherwise it is just using the term 'o…

>Without full control over their tools, human beings cannot be free/autonomous.

this assumes humans want to be free/autonomous. modern society already hunts and provides power/water/shelter to most of the middle class and above populace. How many truly want that full control over their resources to begin with?

Re: Sorry everybody, I failed with you

#304

Post by shawn-furyan »

elric wrote: post #285
tnorthcutt wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not every FOSS developer has a consulting gig. But they could! It's as easy as saying "I can consult on $topic, please contact me to discuss details." Then you charge money and do the work.

It's probably not that clear cut. Maybe they have a full time job. Maybe their employer has An Opinion regarding side gigs. Maybe they live somewhere where a side gig comes with a lot of paperwork/taxes so it isn't worth the hassle.

There's probably some price where it's worth the hassle. I feel like every OSS project starter should have at least a firm notion of where that line is before they publish. On one hand, maybe you'll get it, but mostly it helps clarify what your time is worth so that you don't feel guilty about rejecting requests on your time that don't meet your own standards for value.

Re: Sorry everybody, I failed with you

#305

Post by johnnyanmac »

mumblemumble wrote: post #214
autarch wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've honestly never been at a job interview where people gave a crap about my open source contributions. They're typically much more interested in hearing war stories from the closed source projects I've worked on. Counterpoint - I have. Many times. I created some Perl libraries (most notable DateTime " rel="nofollow">https://metacpan.org/dist/DateTime">DateTime and Log-Dispatch " rel="nofollow">https://metacpan.or…

Ha. I had actually thought about mentioning that this situation seemed to be very different 20 years ago, but decided I had already done enough blathering. But, anyway, yeah - I think that this was different 20 years ago, back when open source hadn't quite completely disrupted the software industry and companies didn't yet understand the economics of open source.

I mean, I worked with someone who creates a very high profile OSS project, and I'm sure it's a big reason he got hired to where he is.

I'll never say OSS is an optimal career path unless you are doing something extremely specialized (which to be fair, he is). But it sure can open doors for you even today if that's something you're passionate in. For me, I got around without any OSS, so it's more like a post-career plan now to help out some beloved repos.

(as long as you're not stupid, like showing your botting repository to an online game studio).

Re: Sorry everybody, I failed with you

#306

Post by draw_down »

I don’t understand dhow people do this. It’s just an extra unpaid job on top of your real job. Your reward for your troubles is an endless litany of issues, complaints, requests, and maybe a nice message or two. Thanks but no thanks.

Re: Sorry everybody, I failed with you

#307

Post by intricatedetail »

antran22 wrote: post #25
intricatedetail wrote: post #6

That's the dark side of open source. Companies think these projects grow on trees and they use them without paying anything. We need law changes to ensure that open source can be sustainable and companies pay the fair share of revenue they make by using it.

The point of open source is people can use it freely. A better project, which hits the right spots will naturally attract financial and technical support, both from the companies and the community. It is really just a free market, where the best projects survive.

_people_ not big corporations that make billions, don't pay tax and don't share revenue made using the open source software. Personal use should be free but gravy train for corporations must end.

Re: Sorry everybody, I failed with you

#308

Post by apocalypstyx »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #303
apocalypstyx wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In the famous words of Peter Griffin, "OH MY GOD WHO THE [expletive] CARES?!!" The definitions of these terms have existed for decades. Trying to confuse or conflate them is just a slight of hand to generally disingenuous ends. Very little stops people from selling products under whatever terms they want. If they are honest, they can call their product what it is: proprietary. Otherwise it is just using the term 'o…

>Without full control over their tools, human beings cannot be free/autonomous. this assumes humans want to be free/autonomous. modern society already hunts and provides power/water/shelter to most of the middle class and above populace. How many truly want that full control over their resources to begin with?

Yes, in general humans often do everything they can to escape from freedom. Or, as the serpent said to Eve: "Here's Looking at You, Kid."

Re: Sorry everybody, I failed with you

#309

Post by rad_gruchalski »

ericb wrote: post #262
onion2k wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone can just do it. They literally can't though. Only the owner or a maintainer has permission to merge PRs in to the main branch. Anyone can fork a repo, write a patch, and PR it, but that's where outside contributions stop. It still takes someone from the original team to accept a contribution. Forking a project and then maintaining that fork as a separate project is an option, but it's divisive one that a lot o…

This is a serious shortcoming in github's current UI. There's no easy discovery for which forks are active. It would be useful if there was a checkbox "Actively Publicly Maintained" in forked repos that defaults to Off. That way, on the forks page of a repo, if someone is offering an alternative, an "actively maintained" check mark (and perhaps a date) can be shown and it can bubble to the top of the "forks" list.

There is a graph showing the fork activity. Also, the setting you are thinking if is probably “archive”.
Post reply on HN