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

Discourse Is Not Going Closed Source

blog.discourse.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 90 posts

Re: Discourse Is Not Going Closed Source

#81

Post by glerk »

ramon156 wrote: post #38
glerk wrote: post #35

I've started to opensource my side projects (as long as the code is in a state that I'm not too ashamed of). Seeing how easily I can reverse engineer binaries, clone various applications, and just generally build stuff from scratch with AI assistance, I think there is no moat in hiding your source code. If you can use my code to build something better than me, I wish you the best of luck!

Instead of Microsoft snooping my code, now everyone can!

I’d rather next models be trained on my code than all that slop that’s out there. Hell really is other people’s code.

Re: Discourse Is Not Going Closed Source

#82

Post by Serhii-Set »

dhruv3006 wrote: post #8

> Open source creates a useful urgency: when your code is public, you assume it will be examined closely, so you invest earlier and more aggressively in finding and fixing issues before attackers do. This should be the mentality of every company doing open source.Great points made.

[dead]

Re: Discourse Is Not Going Closed Source

#83

Post by negura »

LorenDB wrote: post #68
negura wrote: post #40

too bad. i wish they would go closedsource so that maybe everyone would stop using it. it's dogshit for countless reasons. including: - refuses to even load on browser engines older than 2 years. for a webforum that's absolutely appaling. there's a barebones non-JS version. but it only loads for individual threads (not the forum homepage or anything else), so they must be linked to directly (e.g from a websearch engi…

You forgot one of the worst parts: the Discobot that tries to make you run through a tutorial every. single. time. you sign up for a Discourse forum.

yes! another one i forgot: all the bullshit notifications about level promotions, earning badges and "thanks for spending time with us" inbox spam.

Re: Discourse Is Not Going Closed Source

#84

Post by necovek »

roenxi wrote: post #64
TeMPOraL wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. All software products you can get your hands on are open source - compiled code is only little more difficult to read than source code, but not that much if you learn how. Which is why ~all companies switches to offering software as a service, so this mindset doesn't apply :).

> but not that much if you learn how. Yesterday I threw some ghidra output into an LLM with very little context and got what seemed to be a reasonable run down of the original back. We're probably knocking on the door of being able to throw a binary into an LLM and getting the original program back unless there is active obfuscation done. It is a very exciting time for anyone who likes playing old, abandoned and bugg…

I haven't played much with LLMs for decompilation, but I wonder how viable is using LLMs on binaries to port software to a different language (in combination with source code when available, but binaries might need fewer tokens).

Re: Discourse Is Not Going Closed Source

#85

Post by negura »

thunderfork wrote: post #74
nixosbestos wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> must be the virtue signalling I wish you folks could understand how clownish you sound.

I do feel like this sinks a post of otherwise reasonable complaints. What "virtue signaling" is discourse even being accused of?

i was referring to the blog post. where they pride on having courage to uphold the values of the opensource ecosystem.

Re: Discourse Is Not Going Closed Source

#86

Post by LoganDark »

pseudalopex wrote: post #78
saghm wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm saying this: I don't think a lie can be in good faith by definition. Trying to make someone believe something you know isn't the truth is fundamentally bad faith.

I thought you said Intentionally lying and bad faith is by definition trying to trick people. But you said Intentionally lying is bad faith and by definition trying to trick people. I thought your point was intent. Most people would not say to hide Jews from Nazis was bad faith I think.

> Most people would not say to hide Jews from Nazis was bad faith I think.

That would be perfectly bad faith to the Nazis. There's no such factor as moral good or bad here; bad faith has more to do the intent you have towards each party. If the intent is to explicitly trick someone towards something you want or away from something you don't want, that is usually in bad faith. (There are some exceptions.) If the intent is just to explain something in a way others will understand, even if your explanation turns out to be (knowingly) inaccurate, that can sometimes be in good faith, though I wouldn't call it good practice.

Re: Discourse Is Not Going Closed Source

#87

Post by LoganDark »

saghm wrote: post #76
swiftcoder wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> even lying is only bad faith depending on the intent of the lie And the intent here is to intentionally mislead, so how is that not bad faith?

Yeah, I'm pretty confused about what point they're trying to make. Given that a lie is intentionally saying something untrue, there are three possibilities: 1. A is lying to B, and they know that B doesn't know the truth. The intent is to make them believe the lie, which is intentionally misleading them and bad faith 2. A is lying to B, and they aren't sure if B knows it's a lie. The intent is to make them believe th…

It mostly has to do with the potential effect of believing the lie and your reasons for telling it. If you know that believing the lie results in your advantage and/or someone else's disadvantage, then it's probably bad faith. If you don't know that however, and the intent is not necessarily to mislead, that's not always bad faith. You could argue that the very act of claiming a falsehood to someone is knowingly deceptive and therefore bad faith by definition, but I don't agree that's unconditional.

For example, if I lie to protect both myself and all other parties involved, that sometimes can be in good faith! It can be bad faith if I know that it hurts them and also know a less hurtful alternative, but if I really believe the less immediately hurtful alternative will lead to a worse overall outcome then I can still be acting in good faith. It's really a lot more nuanced than "deception bad". I have to deceive myself all the time to achieve good outcomes! now I wouldn't say my treatment of myself is good faith but I try sometimes.

Re: Discourse Is Not Going Closed Source

#88

Post by pseudalopex »

LoganDark wrote: post #86
pseudalopex wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought you said Intentionally lying and bad faith is by definition trying to trick people. But you said Intentionally lying is bad faith and by definition trying to trick people. I thought your point was intent. Most people would not say to hide Jews from Nazis was bad faith I think.

> Most people would not say to hide Jews from Nazis was bad faith I think. That would be perfectly bad faith to the Nazis. There's no such factor as moral good or bad here; bad faith has more to do the intent you have towards each party. If the intent is to explicitly trick someone towards something you want or away from something you don't want, that is usually in bad faith. (There are some exceptions.) If the inten…

I said most people. Not you.

Re: Discourse Is Not Going Closed Source

#89

Post by [deleted] »

eaf7e281 wrote: post #60
negura wrote: post #40

too bad. i wish they would go closedsource so that maybe everyone would stop using it. it's dogshit for countless reasons. including: - refuses to even load on browser engines older than 2 years. for a webforum that's absolutely appaling. there's a barebones non-JS version. but it only loads for individual threads (not the forum homepage or anything else), so they must be linked to directly (e.g from a websearch engi…

I'm not sure where this heat comes from, but what constitutes a "good" forum in your opinion? I would love to check it out.

[deleted]

Re: Discourse Is Not Going Closed Source

#90

Post by thunderfork »

bruce511 wrote: post #17
kelsey98765431 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The web has grown so hostile lately that javascript is honestly not safe or useful anymore. the only thing it's used for is serving ads and trackers and paywalls, if i can't read a website with no script enabled it's not meant for me and im just not reading it.

I concur that most web sites could use less JavaScript. And a lot of (but not all) cosmetic uses for JavaScript can be done in CSS. Of course for web apps (as distinct from web sites) most of what we do would be impossible without JavaScript. Infinite scrolling, maps (moving and zooming), field validation on entry, asynchronous page updates, web sockets, all require JavaScript. Of course JavaScript is abused. But it'…

HTML does provide the ability to use some client-side form validation without JavaScript.

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Learn_web_developme...

Not saying your broader point is incorrect, but useful to know.

Post reply on HN