Gem.coop • Hacker News Board

KingOfCoders wrote: post #58

phoronixrly wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn't explain how rv is threatening rubygems in any way.

[flagged]

Oh, don't worry, I get what you and Rafael are trying to insinuate. I just want you to spell it out so that hopefully you see how stupid it sounds.

Re: Gem.coop

#64

Post by directionless » Mon, Oct 06, 2025, 1:00 PM UTC

Given some of the ways Andre Arko gets described (See https://justin.searls.co/posts/why-im-not-rushing-to-take-si... for a recent overview) I'm a little wary of what the motivation behind this is.

Re: Gem.coop

#65

Post by KingOfCoders » Mon, Oct 06, 2025, 1:20 PM UTC

phoronixrly wrote: post #63

KingOfCoders wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Oh, don't worry, I get what you and Rafael are trying to insinuate. I just want you to spell it out so that hopefully you see how stupid it sounds.

[flagged]

Re: Gem.coop

#66

Post by kimos » Mon, Oct 06, 2025, 1:22 PM UTC

directionless wrote: post #64

Given some of the ways Andre Arko gets described (See https://justin.searls.co/posts/why-im-not-rushing-to-take-si... for a recent overview) I'm a little wary of what the motivation behind this is.

This reads like a hit piece based on a personal vendetta. I'd be careful how much weight to give this.

Re: Gem.coop

#67

Post by Kudos » Mon, Oct 06, 2025, 2:25 PM UTC

byroot wrote: post #38

joeldrapper wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I heard it directly from people directly involved.

So it is unsubstantiated.

This is a little glib, you dropped "Entirely" because you know multiple first hand accounts are actually worth something. If you want to argue the credibility of those accounts, then please be specific about it.

Re: Gem.coop

#68

Post by mijoharas » Mon, Oct 06, 2025, 2:27 PM UTC

So, ignoring everything that got us here, what do people think about this?

As I see it, there is the original rubygems, which has lost all of it's maintainers, and this new one, that has most of the original active maintainers? (how many were there before? it has most of the ones I think about, but I didn't know who was active over there. I mostly saw activity from deivid and didn't know about most of the others to be honest).

It kind feels like this fork is the better maintained piece of software now.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Are any people thinking of moving over soon?

Is there any information on what the funding model will be? Also @joeldrapper/anyone is there anything you can share about how the hosting is being covered?[0]

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45490386

Re: Gem.coop

#69

Post by realty_geek » Mon, Oct 06, 2025, 2:28 PM UTC

Flagging this post is quite disturbing.

There is a conversation around this which needs to be had. Maybe on bsky or x?

https://x.com/africajam/status/1975206106738901110

https://bsky.app/profile/indirect.io/post/3m2iq5p7eoc2j

Re: Gem.coop

#70

Post by mijoharas » Mon, Oct 06, 2025, 2:28 PM UTC

joeldrapper wrote: post #51

halicarnassus wrote: post #39

Great move to counter the hostile takeover of the RubyGems GitHub repo (not the rubygems.org repo) and organization by Ruby Central. I hope they find financing to cover hosting costs.

I believe the hosting is already covered.

Is there anything more you can share about that? I guess I should just sign up to the newsletter and wait and find out...