71–80 of 127 posts
More importantly, how do I keep clients from fucking up my database? How is security being done? Seriously, if I'm not capable of baking limitations into data persistence/logic at the server level then this entire framework is worthless except for building up a portfolio of cute demos that can't be used for any real work.
I feel it is sad that so few HN hackers seem to appreciate the vision of the GPL. GPL needs more indispensable software like this for it to thrive and protect us all from a future of completely locked down computers.
From a user perspective, GPL offers in theory more freedom, since new products built on codebase X will also be free. It is debatable if this is true in practice. If less software gets built as a result of the license restriction, the GPL takes away freedom. Even closed source software adds some freedom - the freedom of choice. From a developer perspective, there is no question which one is more free. We often do not…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it isn't obvious, GPL is an attack against proprietary computers and against the corporations that have been trying repeatedly over decades to bottle-up and monopolize the computer revolution.
GPL is an attack on the user who wants to do whatever (s)he wants.
Contrast this with proprietary software.
There are restrictions for developers, namely that you can't link GPLed code to non-GPLed or GPLable code, and that you can't close the source.
Liberal licenses are easier on developers, but they don't guarantee that the source will remain open. Software is ubiquitous nowadays, and most appliances use closed source software of unknown quality and probity. There's spyware in every cell phone, for example.
More GPL makes a better world, overall.
I am glad they changed their minds.
I feel it is sad that so few HN hackers seem to appreciate the vision of the GPL. GPL needs more indispensable software like this for it to thrive and protect us all from a future of completely locked down computers.
From a user perspective, GPL offers in theory more freedom, since new products built on codebase X will also be free. It is debatable if this is true in practice. If less software gets built as a result of the license restriction, the GPL takes away freedom. Even closed source software adds some freedom - the freedom of choice. From a developer perspective, there is no question which one is more free. We often do not…
I think Vasco is also brings up another valid argument. Not all choices are equal and some are not even actually choices. Either way you want to look at it, one can honestly make a sensible and consistent argument that more software does not automatically mean more freedom.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From a user perspective, GPL offers in theory more freedom, since new products built on codebase X will also be free. It is debatable if this is true in practice. If less software gets built as a result of the license restriction, the GPL takes away freedom. Even closed source software adds some freedom - the freedom of choice. From a developer perspective, there is no question which one is more free. We often do not…
I agree with you, but just to point out what I believe the GPL people think about your point: If you're going to write non-GPL'ed code, they would prefer you wouldn't even write the code, Stallman has said this many times. I think they equate this to something along the lines of just creating more "prisons" and just because you have a bunch of "prisons" to choose where to spend your life, it doesn't make you more fre…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with you, but just to point out what I believe the GPL people think about your point: If you're going to write non-GPL'ed code, they would prefer you wouldn't even write the code, Stallman has said this many times. I think they equate this to something along the lines of just creating more "prisons" and just because you have a bunch of "prisons" to choose where to spend your life, it doesn't make you more fre…
Did he say this? Seems like a really bad analogy to me. If more people are using Meteor, for example, the entire ecosystem will grow. Even if half the devs are writing closed source, they are learning a common tool and that skill lets them contribute to the common knowledge pool (eg. they can answers questions on StackOverFlow). It also creates a bigger market for Meteor developers, thus accelerating adoption.
I feel it is sad that so few HN hackers seem to appreciate the vision of the GPL. GPL needs more indispensable software like this for it to thrive and protect us all from a future of completely locked down computers.
Also, GPL has served its purpose: these days 1) almost everyone realizes that it is in everyone's interest to share code and contribute back (maintaining private forks is expensive in the long term), and 2) most software is offered as a service and the value is not just in the software, but also in the infrastructure, maintenance, support, etc, meaning you rarely encounter the problem of restricted liberties because of a software license.
Note that you do not need a copyleft license to support sharing.
Maybe I'm just not the audience for Meteor, because while it looks like a great project but as a nodejs guy, the fact that it hides itself away from the platform and turned away from the fantastic npm makes me sort of weary about it as a whole. But I imagine people coming from rails or whatever don't find this a problem at all.
SocketStream is a nice framework (also in early stages) that embraces npm and other node conventions. It doesn't support reactive programming out of the box, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone decides to build a module for it.
The new Request Responder API will allow developers to experiment with many different approaches to models, model synching (e.g. with Backbone.js and Ember.js) and reactive templating.
Rather than put opinionated choices about models and clients-side frameworks into the core, we'll ensure the best third-party modules are fully documented and supported before featuring them on our website.