351–360 of 377 posts
I kinda agree with banning the ads because it would have grown out of control and a race to the bottom on who can make their ad more efficient than the others. But here's an idea instead: we already have a Sponsor feature on Github, so how about a command in the package manager that lists all packages that could be sponsored, similar to how packages can be audited ? That way everyone in on an equal footing instead of…
Also, a centralized command in the package manager enables generating lists that their accounting department can use, it can even be part of their automated pipelines and taken into account when they're billing projects to their users.
For larger companies (the ones that are most likely to afford this), making it easy for a problem to go away often matters more than the price itself.
What's this "standard" package anyway? Looks like it's packing eslint with an .estlintrc and... that's it?
So Feross tried to solve this by, yes, making an eslint config and a thin wrapper around it to run it, then giving it a really pretentious name in the hope it would become The Coding Style for JS. It didn't work. Airbnb has always had a significantly more popular eslint config package, and more recently the Prettier tool has solved the problem Standardjs was trying to solve much better (and become much more popular).
And the issue with trying to do what Standardjs is trying to do is that if you're not the most popular solution, you're part of the problem. :)
But at that point, it is no longer open source. The world needs something in between totally free open source, and private closed source. I'm calling that in between model Super Source: https://supso.org/
Think about it: what do the customers (primarily companies) like about open source? Primarily, that there's decent code already written that they can easily find and use. And that they can view the code, integrate it with their software, and perhaps make small modifications if needed, or offer drive-by pull requests. And sure, they like that it's free, but most companies would be willing to pay a small fee for licensing if they had to.
Projects that use Super Source have their code online, viewable, downloadable, and usually free for individuals. But for companies, they require a small licensing fee in order to use the software. So it's no longer technically open source, but still has a lot of the benefits.
This isn't just theoretical. Hundreds if not thousands of companies have signed up with Super Source.
Get in touch if you're interested in how it can work with your project.
Thank you for using core-js ( https://github.com/zloirock/core-js ) for polyfilling JavaScript standard library!
The project needs your help! Please consider supporting of core-js on Open Collective or Patreon: > https://opencollective.com/core-js > https://www.patreon.com/zloirock
Also, the author of core-js ( https://github.com/zloirock ) is looking for a good job -)
I see the following when I run npm install on a Create React App. Are these things now verboten as well? Personally It feels a bit yucky to start making package install logs into a kind of bulletin board system so yeah maybe dialing it back a bit is a good idea. Thank you for using core-js ( https://github.com/zloirock/core-js ) for polyfilling JavaScript standard library! The project needs your help! Please consider…
I've been thinking about this for some time and have decided open source and funding for sustainability are fundamentally incompatible. Like another commenter said, few companies are donating of their own free will, but they are willing to buy a license. So the solution is to sell licenses. But at that point, it is no longer open source. The world needs something in between totally free open source, and private close…
See: https://twitter.com/jhooks/status/1167480182157889536?s=20
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> With all due respect, I feel this is a lack of imagination. We could have said the same thing about soup kitchens, or basic income, or social welfare, or anything else that doesn't cleanly draw profit. Those are all driven by charity for the destitute. It’s not meant to be a patronage paid to starving artists. On the contrary the able bodied are expected to not draw from that well if they can provide for themselves…
I would like to disagree with your point on basic income. It’s usually called _universal_ basic income. Precisely to clarify that it is not a “charity for the destitute”, it is absolutely meant to be for everyone. And for the larger discussion on building the commons I happen to think UBI is an important component. Focusing on the amateur work being done by the civil society at least, an UBI could be precisely the th…
In the credible UBI plans I've seen, the income is Universal in the sense that "everyone gets a check", but in practice that income is paid for by those with middle or higher incomes, such that for many earners that "income" is a net tax (or neutral). "Charity for the destitute" is a bit hyperbolic, but its absolutely income supplementation for the less well off at the expense of those better off.
It’s a slippery slope. The first packages with ads just printed a single line of text. Then others started adding more lines, more aggressive colors, and now you have npm ads painting a half a screenful of empty lines with their ad in the middle. Once can imagine an arms race of ever worse ads. And considering that it’s not unusual to be installing hundreds of npm packages for a single project, the ads would soon ren…
they didn't limit ads. they banned them altogether. it's a charitable thought, but doesn't hold up.