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

GitHub Sponsors

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 516 posts

Re: GitHub Sponsors

#91

Post by zapita »

mythz wrote: post #66
SmellyGeekBoy wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't this also an argument against every VC-funded startup in existence?

And basically every free product released by large companies which prioritizes mass distribution and user base over direct product cost. It definitely makes it much harder for the few remaining competitors but also benefits the far greater number of users. They definitely have a competitive advantage where they're able to build and give away features for free to attract larger mind-share, but it's also the playbook o…

> It definitely makes it much harder for the few remaining competitors but also benefits the far greater number of users.

It only benefits users in the short term. The consequences of monopoly catch up with all of us, eventually.

Re: GitHub Sponsors

#92

Post by stateofnounion »

diggan wrote: post #59

Ugh, not again! First they introduce a Package Registry that not only splits the ecosystem in two parts but also has no open governance or even open source code. Great. Now they are doing the same thing with donations. Instead of collaborating with already open platforms (like OpenCollective or LiberaPay), they decide to build their own closed-source platform. I love that more people are figuring out ways to pay open…

I'm not sure what OP is complaining about. From GitHub's announcement it's clear that there's also a new functionality to make it easy for projects to link to whatever funding platform they use. Open Collective is mentioned specifically:

> Open source projects can also express their funding models directly from their repositories. When .github/FUNDING.yml is added to a project’s master branch, a new “Sponsor” button will appear at the top of the repository. Clicking the button opens a natively rendered view of the funding models listed in that file.

> The YAML format is flexible, so a project’s maintainers and contributors can decide how they want to fund the project on their own terms. They can showcase any (or all!) of the following: the GitHub Sponsors profiles of the developers who contribute to the project; a list of popular funding models including Open Collective, Community Bridge, Tidelift, Ko-fi, and Patreon; and custom links to alternative funding models.

From https://github.blog/2019-05-23-announcing-github-sponsors-a-....

Re: GitHub Sponsors

#93

Post by alias_neo »

mythz wrote: post #77
diggan wrote: post #59

Ugh, not again! First they introduce a Package Registry that not only splits the ecosystem in two parts but also has no open governance or even open source code. Great. Now they are doing the same thing with donations. Instead of collaborating with already open platforms (like OpenCollective or LiberaPay), they decide to build their own closed-source platform. I love that more people are figuring out ways to pay open…

An integrated payment solution is going to attract a far greater numbers of sponsors than telling everyone to go to sign up for a subscription on external sites. Integrated authentication, existing credit cards on file, unified billing, giving more visibility to sponsors, allow projects to effectively monetize high traffic project pages with ad-space for sponsors and potential benefits like priority support is going…

Perhaps this is all a ploy to encourage us to get our credit cards on file with Github? They don't have my card details, and I don't intend to change that. I'll look for other means to donate to the open source projects I want to support, but it does not involve giving Microsoft Github my bank account details.

Re: GitHub Sponsors

#94

Post by diggan »

stateofnounion wrote: post #92
diggan wrote: post #59

Ugh, not again! First they introduce a Package Registry that not only splits the ecosystem in two parts but also has no open governance or even open source code. Great. Now they are doing the same thing with donations. Instead of collaborating with already open platforms (like OpenCollective or LiberaPay), they decide to build their own closed-source platform. I love that more people are figuring out ways to pay open…

I'm not sure what OP is complaining about. From GitHub's announcement it's clear that there's also a new functionality to make it easy for projects to link to whatever funding platform they use. Open Collective is mentioned specifically: > Open source projects can also express their funding models directly from their repositories. When .github/FUNDING.yml is added to a project’s master branch, a new “Sponsor” button…

I'm complaining about that this feature is not trying to improve the ecosystem long-term for open source developers.

It's great that you can now have a fancier link to OpenCollective. Thank you for that, Githubbers who are reading the HN comments. But it feels like smoke-and-mirrors.

The real announcement is the other, built-in funding platform they built. Which, if they wanted to, could have been built entirely on something open, instead of their own stuff. There is no special features that for example OpenCollective does not already have.

Instead they (not surprisingly) continue to walk down the path of closed platforms, while cheering for open source.

Re: GitHub Sponsors

#95

Post by EspadaV9 »

diggan wrote: post #59

Ugh, not again! First they introduce a Package Registry that not only splits the ecosystem in two parts but also has no open governance or even open source code. Great. Now they are doing the same thing with donations. Instead of collaborating with already open platforms (like OpenCollective or LiberaPay), they decide to build their own closed-source platform. I love that more people are figuring out ways to pay open…

This would be something great for GitLab to jump on. A bit reactionary, but would be great for them to show support for a more open payment system.

Re: GitHub Sponsors

#96

Post by diggan »

EspadaV9 wrote: post #95
diggan wrote: post #59

Ugh, not again! First they introduce a Package Registry that not only splits the ecosystem in two parts but also has no open governance or even open source code. Great. Now they are doing the same thing with donations. Instead of collaborating with already open platforms (like OpenCollective or LiberaPay), they decide to build their own closed-source platform. I love that more people are figuring out ways to pay open…

This would be something great for GitLab to jump on. A bit reactionary, but would be great for them to show support for a more open payment system.

That's a great idea! GitLab implementing native support for OpenCollective or similar would raise the bar significantly.

Re: GitHub Sponsors

#97

Post by Kalium »

diggan wrote: post #94
stateofnounion wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what OP is complaining about. From GitHub's announcement it's clear that there's also a new functionality to make it easy for projects to link to whatever funding platform they use. Open Collective is mentioned specifically: > Open source projects can also express their funding models directly from their repositories. When .github/FUNDING.yml is added to a project’s master branch, a new “Sponsor” button…

I'm complaining about that this feature is not trying to improve the ecosystem long-term for open source developers. It's great that you can now have a fancier link to OpenCollective. Thank you for that, Githubbers who are reading the HN comments. But it feels like smoke-and-mirrors. The real announcement is the other, built-in funding platform they built. Which, if they wanted to, could have been built entirely on s…

> It's great that you can now have a fancier link to OpenCollective. Thank you for that, Githubbers who are reading the HN comments.

It improves discoverability, which is important enough that it's a big part of why people use GitHub. It might just be me, but that seems like it might benefit open source developers no matter what platform they use.

Re: GitHub Sponsors

#98

Post by toper-centage »

buro9 wrote: post #36

I run community sites for which I am paid donations to cover running costs including writing code, bug fixes, servers, etc. Today I take donations via PayPal, but the catch with this is that it's hard to provide visibility to donors of how healthy this is (WRT to costs), and whilst I considered Patreon that seemed to be very focused on creative deliverables to donors of a non-code/service nature. I am trying Browser…

LiberaPay seems popular with developers. But Patreon is not unheard of either. The guy that codes Inkscape is on Patreon for instance.

Re: GitHub Sponsors

#99

Post by diggan »

Kalium wrote: post #97
diggan wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm complaining about that this feature is not trying to improve the ecosystem long-term for open source developers. It's great that you can now have a fancier link to OpenCollective. Thank you for that, Githubbers who are reading the HN comments. But it feels like smoke-and-mirrors. The real announcement is the other, built-in funding platform they built. Which, if they wanted to, could have been built entirely on s…

> It's great that you can now have a fancier link to OpenCollective. Thank you for that, Githubbers who are reading the HN comments. It improves discoverability, which is important enough that it's a big part of why people use GitHub. It might just be me, but that seems like it might benefit open source developers no matter what platform they use.

In the short-term, I think a lot of open source developers will get funding, who might not have gotten it otherwise. But I'm not too optimistic of a future where GitHub, as a closed platform, basically owns open source.

Copying from another comment I made:

> But with the new owner who sees GitHub as a way to get marketshare of developers, and not as it's own entity, it's hard to continue to cheer on them. When Microsoft have to either increase profits/decrease expenses and they choose between Azure and GitHub, I'm pretty sure the effort will either be to decrease the expenses of GitHub, or increase the profits of Azure. None of those two ways are good for the users of GitHub in the long-term.

Re: GitHub Sponsors

#100

Post by mythz »

diggan wrote: post #88
mythz wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would they limit themselves to the features of integrating multiple external sites when they can build the features, integration, velocity and product direction they want without being beholden to external stake holders with different values and motivations. GitHub's effectively the home of OSS development, with great UX and design aesthetics, they definitely don't need to delegate for help in building out their…

Microsoft have two choices with the direction of GitHub: Use it as a loss-leader to get developer mindshare and get more people to use what they actually get a profit from, Azure and others. Or, they can use GitHub to build a open platform for the entire ecosystem. What of these two options are the best for users of the platform? I'm sure one option is better for the shareholders of Microsoft/GitHub, but I'm more int…

> Use it as a loss-leader to get developer mindshare

Right, that's why they paid 7.5B to acquire GitHub and are further investing in it to be more appealing to developers and gain even more mind share.

> Or, they can use GitHub to build a open platform for the entire ecosystem.

Is that code for not shipping developer focused features they've released since acquiring GitHub? Most of the features like free private repos and package repositories have been well received.

> What of these two options are the best for users of the platform?

For users, definitely all the features they're taking advantage of now that didn't exist before.

> Sure, if you think of it as OpenCollective vs GitHub.

I'm purely viewing it from the developer's perspective on what would attract more funding/sponsorship, which is by far the more convenient and integrated solution for all reasons already mentioned in my previous comments above.

I view this as a massive potential that could spur on a whole new wave of sustainable OSS development similar to what YouTube/Twitch are doing for content creators. This was never a consideration of GitHub before but with this announcement it's now become a strategic focus which I hope will be continually improved on over time.

Post reply on HN