Help us raise $200k to free JavaScript from Oracle

Post by LeFantome » Sun, Sep 21, 2025, 7:10 PM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #294

johnfn wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be implying that it is bad because it is marketing, and marketing is bad. But not all forms of marketing are bad. This is a classic association fallacy[1]. In this case, Deno can both improve perception of their brand and reclaim "JavaScript" -- it's a win-win. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

> But not all forms of marketing are bad. This is a classic association fallacy This is the classic "I'd accused your argument of being a fallacy so you're wrong and I'm right fallacy". Nah, all forms of marketing are bad.

Post by coldtea » Sun, Sep 21, 2025, 8:32 PM UTC

LeFantome wrote: post #361

coldtea wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But not all forms of marketing are bad. This is a classic association fallacy This is the classic "I'd accused your argument of being a fallacy so you're wrong and I'm right fallacy". Nah, all forms of marketing are bad.

Letting people know you have a product is marketing. Let people know that they can be trained or educated is marketing. Those are "bad" in your view? Google Summer of Code is bad? Sponsoring the Linux Foundation is bad? Releasing libraries as Open Source is bad? Can you put any colour on your comments. They are difficult to understand.

Post by surajrmal » Mon, Sep 22, 2025, 7:48 AM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #363

LeFantome wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Letting people know you have a product is marketing. Let people know that they can be trained or educated is marketing. Those are "bad" in your view? Google Summer of Code is bad? Sponsoring the Linux Foundation is bad? Releasing libraries as Open Source is bad? Can you put any colour on your comments. They are difficult to understand.

> Letting people know you have a product is marketing Google Summer of Code is bad. I don't want a trillion dollar monopoly influencing FOSS. Sponsoring the Linux Foundation can be bad, depending on who does it. Individual people with their donations? Releasing libraries as Open Source is not bad. But if you release them as a corporate behemoth, who employs the people who work of them, and have them assign copyright…

Post by r_lee » Mon, Sep 22, 2025, 10:05 AM UTC

SOLAR_FIELDS wrote: post #76

r_lee wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine the kind of media attention / clout they'll get for "beating Oracle" etc. They absolutely do get material gains from this, should they succeed. It'd be a much more legitimate effort if they were just asking people to raise funds for e.g. OpenJS to file suit etc.

I want Deno to succeed. They already have enough challenges between bun and Node taking all of their good ideas and incorporating them. I want the ecosystem to have more options. This is Oracle we are talking about here. I would cut off my nose to spite Oracle’s face if necessary, they are some of the worst corporate actors in the history of the world. And that is not an exaggeration.

Post by surajrmal » Mon, Sep 22, 2025, 2:41 PM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #368

surajrmal wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google SoC gives legitimacy to working of OSS to equal terms of having a paid internship. Many of the projects probably don't even meet your description of FOSS. The Linux foundation would not exist if only individuals donated to it. Most OSS suffers from a lack of maintainers with time as they rarely are paid and can't make a living from working on it. Company backed OSS doesn't suffer from this. Most popular "commu…

> The Linux foundation would not exist if only individuals donated to it Many things would not exist if they had to exist properly. Doesn't mean them existing improperly is good. > Company backed OSS doesn't suffer from this. No, but suffers from a way worse issue: corporate control. Which is why community FOSS has been going downhill since circa 2005.