347 Matching Annotations
  1. Oct 2021
    1. Open source software is cited as the first domain where networked open sharing produced a tangible benefit

      The phrase should be:

      The Free Software and Open-source movements were the first domains where networked open sharing produced a tangible benefit.

      Why?

      Free Software movement started in 1983.

      Open-source movement started in 1998.

  2. Sep 2021
    1. (They blame Chrome's "feature" addition treadmill, where "they keep adding stupid kitchen sinks for the sole and only purpose to make others unable to keep up.")
  3. Aug 2021
    1. I joined Caldera in November of 1995, and we certainly used "open source" broadly at that time. We were building software. I can't imagine a world where we did not use the specific phrase "open source software". And we were not alone. The term "Open Source" was used broadly by Linus Torvalds (who at the time was a student...I had dinner with Linus and his then-girlfriend Ute in Germany while he was still a student)

      From Linus Torvalds Remembers the Days Before ‘Open Source’:

      Torvalds counters that “I wouldn’t trust Lyle Ball’s recollection 100% about me… since my girlfriend-at-the-time (now wife) name was Tove, not Ute.”

  4. Jul 2021
    1. Looking deeper, you can see a large amount of issues open, bugs taking months to fix, and pull requests never seem to be merged from outside contributors. Apollo seems unfocused on building the great client package the community wants.
    2. This sort of behaviour indicates to me that Apollo is using open-source merely for marketing and not to make their product better. The company wants you to get familiar with Apollo Client and then buy into their products, not truly open-source software in my opinion. This is one of the negatives of the open-core business model.
    1. Growth hacking and lowest common denominator experiences are their problems, so we should avoid making them our problems, too. We already have various tools for enabling growth: the freedom to use the software for any purpose being one of the most powerful. We can go the other way and provide deeply-specific experiences that solve a small collection of problems incredibly well for a small number of people. Then those people become super-committed fans because no other thing works as well for them as our thing, and they tell their small number of friends, who can not only use this great thing but have the freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does their computing as they wish—or to get someone to change it for them. Thus the snowball turns into an avalanche.

      This is exactly how I feel about Joplin - the open-source note taking application, developed as an alternative to Evernote.

  5. Jun 2021
    1. I’d still argue that offices can and do produce spontaneous, productive encounters.

      But so does any other form of collaboration. Most of the internet is run by code that was written by people communicating over email and IRC. There was no "open source office" that these people collaborated in.

    1. This, it seems to me, would be something like a readerly utopia. It could even (if we want to get all grand and optimistic) turn out to be a Gutenberg-style revolution — not for writing, this time, but for reading.

      I love the idea of this but implementation, particularly open implementation seems nearly impossible.

      Even getting digital commonplaces to align and register is tough enough much less doing multi-modal registration with the locations that books might live.

    1. Users who have installed it decided to trust me, and I'm not comfortable transferring that trust to someone else on their behalf. However, if you'd like to fork it, feel free.

      Interesting decision... Seems like the project could have been handed off to new maintainers instead of just a dead-end abandoned project and little chance of anyone using it for new projects now.

      Sure you can fork it, but without a clear indication of which of the many forks in the network graph to trust, I doubt few will take the (massively) extra time to evaluate all options and choose an existing fork as a "leader" (or create their own fork) to go with continuing maintenance...

  6. May 2021
  7. Apr 2021
    1. Manifold – Building an Open Source Publishing Platform

      Zach Davis and Matthew Gold

      Re-watching after the conference.

      Manifold

      Use case of showing the process of making the book. The book as a start to finish project rather than just the end product.

      They built the platform while eating their own cooking (or at least doing so with nearby communities).

      Use for this as bookclubs. Embedable audio and video possibilities.

      Use case where people have put journals on the platform and they've grown to add meta data and features to work for that.

      They're allowing people to pull in social media pieces into the platform as well. Perhaps an opportunity to use Webmentions?

      They support epub.

      It can pull in Gutenberg texts.

      Jim Groom talks about the idea of almost using Manifold as an LMS in and of itself. Centering the text as the thing around which we're gathering.

      CUNY Editions of standard e-books with additional resources.Critical editions.

      Using simple tools like Google Docs and then ingest them into Manifold using a YAML file.

      TEI, LaTeX formats and strategies for pulling them in. (Are these actually supported? It wasn't clear.)

      Reclaim Cloud has a container that will run Manifold.

      Zach is a big believer in UX and design as the core of their product.

    1. I also sell Sidekiq Pro and Sidekiq Enterprise, extensions to Sidekiq which provide more features, a commercial-friendly license and allow you to support high quality open source development all at the same time.
  8. Mar 2021
    1. This is not a fork. This is a repository of scripts to automatically build Microsoft's vscode repository into freely-licensed binaries with a community-driven default configuration.

      almost without a doubt, inspired by: chromium vs. chrome

    1. Sorry you’re surprised. Issues are filed at about a rate of 1 per day against GLib. Merge requests at a rate of about 1 per 2 days. Each issue or merge request takes a minimum of about 30 minutes (across at least 2 people) to analyse, put together a fix, test it, review it, fix it, review it and merge it. I’d estimate the average is closer to 3 hours than 30 minutes. Even at the fastest rate, it would take 3 working months to clear the backlog of ~1000 issues. I get a small proportion of my working time to spend on GLib (not full time).
    2. Age of a ticket is completely irrelevant as anyone can request anything but the number of developers is limited. If you'd like to see something implemented, please consider providing a patch. Thanks!
    3. Sorry if I sounded rude. I am using Gnome on a daily basis and am highly appreciating all the work anyone has put into it. I was just surprised when I found an AskUbuntu post from 2010 linking to this bug.
    4. Wow 14 years. I still keep stumbling over this issue...
    1. The reason we've avoided registering "Cinnamon" as a desktop name is that it opens up issues with many upstream apps that currently OnlyShowIn=Gnome or Gnome;Unity or just Unity. The relationship Mint has with Gnome and Ubuntu isn't genial enough that we could get them to add Cinnamon to their desktop files, so we would have to distribute and maintain separate duplicate .desktop files just for Cinnamon for these upstream packages.
    1. here is my set of best practices.I review libraries before adding them to my project. This involves skimming the code or reading it in its entirety if short, skimming the list of its dependencies, and making some quality judgements on liveliness, reliability, and maintainability in case I need to fix things myself. Note that length isn't a factor on its own, but may figure into some of these other estimates. I have on occasion pasted short modules directly into my code because I didn't think their recursive dependencies were justified.I then pin the library version and all of its dependencies with npm-shrinkwrap.Periodically, or when I need specific changes, I use npm-check to review updates. Here, I actually do look at all the changes since my pinned version, through a combination of change and commit logs. I make the call on whether the fixes and improvements outweigh the risk of updating; usually the changes are trivial and the answer is yes, so I update, shrinkwrap, skim the diff, done.I prefer not to pull in dependencies at deploy time, since I don't need the headache of github or npm being down when I need to deploy, and production machines may not have external internet access, let alone toolchains for compiling binary modules. Npm-pack followed by npm-install of the tarball is your friend here, and gets you pretty close to 100% reproducible deploys and rollbacks.This list intentionally has lots of judgement calls and few absolute rules. I don't follow all of them for all of my projects, but it is what I would consider a reasonable process for things that matter.
    2. I suspect you aren't seeing much discussion because those who have a reasonable process in place, and do not consider this situation to be as bad as everyone would have you believe, tend not to comment on it as much.
    1. JavaScript needs to fly from its comfy nest, and learn to survive on its own, on equal terms with other languages and run-times. It’s time to grow up, kid.
    2. If JavaScript were detached from the client and server platforms, the pressure of being a monoculture would be lifted — the next iteration of the JavaScript language or run-time would no longer have to please every developer in the world, but instead could focus on pleasing a much smaller audience of developers who love JavaScript and thrive with it, while enabling others to move to alternative languages or run-times.
    1. For the $$$ question, nothing comes to mind. These problems i'm hitting up against are larger than a contractor could solve in a few hours of work (which would be hundreds/thousands of dollars).
    2. Yeah, can we pay money to make this go faster? Serious question.
    3. Progress is slow though. I want to change how assets are loaded, the current implementation of "pipelines" is challenging to work with.
    1. OpenFaaS is hosted by OpenFaaS Ltd (registration: 11076587), a company which also offers commercial services, homepage sponsorships, and support.
    1. On the “lows” side, I’d say the worst thing was the impact of not being present enough for my family. I was working a full-time job and doing faastRuby on nights and weekends. Here I want to give a big shout out to my wife. She supported me through this and didn’t cut my head off in the process.
  9. Feb 2021
    1. Testing your open source projects will always be free! Seriously. Always. We like to think of it as our way of giving back to a community that connects so many people.
    1. Our mission is to allow people to make money via educational efforts and to dedicate the rest of their time to creating great open source products.

      What does this mean exactly? "Our mission is to allow people to make money via educational efforts"

    1. We’re now relaunching PRO, but instead of a paid chat and (never existing) paid documentation, your team gets access to paid gems, our visual editor for workflows, and a commercial license.
    2. And yes, at TRB GmbH, we do pay people to work on OSS
    3. To tell you the truth, the new tracing feature was the original reason why I decided to write 2.1 and make you sit and wait in agony for years. Nevertheless, tracing is simply blowing my mind. I can’t count how many hours and angering rushs of adrenaline I’ve saved since the introduction of the wtf? method and its helpful higher-level stack trace.
    1. note that TRB source code modifications are not proprietary

      In other words, you can build on this software in your proprietary software but can't change the Trailblazer source unless you're willing to contribute it back.

      loophole: I wonder if this will actually just push people to move their code -- which at the core is/would be a direction modification to the source code - out to a separate module. That's so easy to do with Ruby, so this restriction hardly seems like it would have any effect on encouraging contributions.

    2. Trailblazer (TRB) is an Open-Source project. Since we want to keep it that way, we decided to raise awareness for the “cost” of our work - providing new versions and features is incredibly time-consuming for us, but we love what we do.
    3. This creates a win-win situation, you as the user have your peace of mind, and we can continue working with your funds.
    1. Great thanks to Blake Education for giving us the freedom and time to develop this project in 2013 while working on their project.
    1. This gives them a slight edge but that’s nothing substantial because those fixes eventually reach Ubuntu.
    1. But all of these attempts misunderstand why the Open Source ecosystem is successful as a whole. The ecosystem of fairly standard licenses provides a level playing field that allows collaboration with low friction, and produces massive value for everyone involved – both to those that contribute and to those that don't. It is not without problems (there are many essential but unsexy projects that are struggling with funding), but introducing more friction won't improve the success of this ecosystem – it will just lead to some parts of the ecosystem to break off.
    2. Part of me thinks that open source can be more rewarding to the creators/contributors. But maybe the real contribution is the permanent addition to the tools available to humanity, and if you have the wits, you can make a decent business out of it without tainting open source.
    3. Selling proprietary software is difficult when there is so much gratis Open Source software around.
    4. For a sufficiently successful and industry-relevant open source project, it's possible for the main developers to earn a living e.g. by selling related consulting services.
    5. It turns out that creating and using Free Software is not just good to individuals, but for businesses as well, for example by building upon publicly available components and by collaborating shared software. The term Open Source is a business-friendly rebranding of the Free Software concept. This line of thought was also widely successful, e.g. Firefox/Mozilla was an open sourcing of Netscape software.
  10. Jan 2021
    1. Lemmy is a great open source federated and privacy respecting alternative to Reddit. Nodes can be self-hosted and posts will sync between them.

    1. Unfortunately, this probably means a death knoll for this gem, at least I predict it will contribute to its slow trajectory towards insignificance/unknownness/lack-of-users.

      Why? Because it is already the less popular option in this comparison: https://ruby.libhunt.com/compare-premailer-rails-vs-roadie-rails

      and being actively maintained is an important factor in evaluating competing options.

      So of course people will see that the premailer option is the option that is still actively maintained, is still continuing to be improved, and they'll see that this one has been relegated to dormancy/stagnancy/neglect/staleness, which will only amplify the degree/sense of abandonment it already has from its maintainer (only now it will be its users that start to abandon it, as I now have).

    2. At work, I cannot maintain this project. At home, I'd rather spend time with my children and on projects that I'm currently passionate about.
    1. unlike a traditional computer, a blockchain computer can offer strong trust guarantees, rooted in the mathematical and game-theoretic properties of the system. A user or developer can trust that a piece of code running on a blockchain computer will continue to behave as designed, even if individual participants in the network change their motivations or try to subvert the system. This means that the control of a blockchain computer can be placed in the hands of a community
    1. Augmented Steam is an open source project. You can verify the code for yourself, help us improve it or create your very own version.
    1. Would you work for free? It is a simple but loaded question that requires additional context. Is it working to help a friend do something? Is it work that you would enjoy? Does the act of working for free give you some level of satisfaction? Your gut reaction to the question may have been a hearty, “No,” but many people volunteer for a variety of things all the time, so people will work for free when there is something in it they enjoy.
    2. Open source is fundamentally good with the transparency and flexibility it brings; however, as our reliance on it goes up, the overall investment back into the ecosystem has not. It can be easy to take for granted the time and effort many developers put into open source projects. Yet it is with their time and effort that we often save our own.
    3. These developers are not greedy or selfish for wanting funding for their projects. To the contrary, they want funding to keep the project alive. A person has to eat, after all. Funding the project is a means of changing the maintainer’s timeshare—allowing themselves to put time into the project that otherwise would be used for other employment. There is only so much time in a day that a person can otherwise give.
    4. Funding should not be a struggle for open source projects. We embrace open source into our codebases frequently but have yet to fully embrace the idea that funding it actually helps us too. The bug fixes and feature requests need to be implemented, tested, and reviewed by someone who themselves can only put so much time into the project.
    1. I don’t think he implies that, he didn’t mentioned FOSS or non-FOSS. Third party doesn’t refer to licensing, only to who provides it.
    2. wouldn’t that « lesser » the FOSS effort towards desktop app’s ?
    3. Snap gets rid of dependency mess. Good. Snap offers in one place FOSS and proprietary app’s. Here I am suspicious. It may be an advantage for a commercial app-store and for some users. But this advantage may lead to loss of comfort and flexibility for the many users that rely first on FOSS.
    1. If it is powerful and reliable, that means it serves them better.

      software is often oriented towards performance as primary (if not only) criterium, it is developed through a performance-centric lens.

      other cultural, social, ethical factors are ignored or not taken into account

  11. Dec 2020
    1. You can also purchase a Nextcould hosting service, which on one hand may not seem any different from giving your photos over to Google or Apple, but there's a significant difference: Nextcloud storage is demonstrably encrypted, with source code to prove it.
    1. Following the model of open-source software, we can enter our ideas and expressions into public discourse

      This also isn't a well-aligned argument. Articles published in a for-profit journal are entered into the public discourse (although obviously not into the public domain). Unless public means "without cost", which I don't think it does.

      We might want to broaden this to include open-access, which is specific to publication models.

    1. Our team is building open source community tools and Svelte fits our identity as an independent labor of love with an organic community.
    2. With some frameworks, you may find your needs at odds with the enterprise-level goals of a megacorp owner, and you may both benefit and sometimes suffer from their web-scale engineering. Svelte’s future does not depend on the continued delivery of business value to one company, and its direction is shaped in public by volunteers.
  12. Nov 2020
    1. In Rust, we use the "No New Rationale" rule, which says that the decision to merge (or not merge) an RFC is based only on rationale that was presented and debated in public. This avoids accidents where the community feels blindsided by a decision.
    2. I'd like to go with an RFC-based governance model (similar to Rust, Ember or Swift) that looks something like this: new features go through a public RFC that describes the motivation for the change, a detailed implementation description, a description on how to document or teach the change (for kpm, that would roughly be focused around how it affected the usual workflows), any drawbacks or alternatives, and any open questions that should be addressed before merging. the change is discussed until all of the relevant arguments have been debated and the arguments are starting to become repetitive (they "reach a steady state") the RFC goes into "final comment period", allowing people who weren't paying close attention to every proposal to have a chance to weigh in with new arguments. assuming no new arguments are presented, the RFC is merged by consensus of the core team and the feature is implemented. All changes, regardless of their source, go through this process, giving active community members who aren't on the core team an opportunity to participate directly in the future direction of the project. (both because of proposals they submit and ones from the core team that they contribute to)
    3. So I propose having the repo in place, and using it for targeted proposals where we really want feedback from early users, and hold off formalising anything more until early next year, as you said.
    1. Express - 19 $ 🏃‍♀️ Skip the Review Queue 🕒 Published in 3 days 💌 Full Customer Support 💚 Support the team

      Wow, after seeing how this site works, I don't like much like it anymore.

      Esp. this below:

      Choose your preferred publish date - 9 $ Feature your project on top for 14 days and get an additional tweet - 19 $

      I hope there is/will be soon a more open/free alternative (like the "awesome" lists that use GitHub PRs instead of an opaque/proprietary submisison form).

    1. Tunnelgram is fully open source (server and client) and uses the Tunnelwire Encryption Scheme, so you can see all of the code it's built on.
  13. Oct 2020
    1. Free to accessFree to reuseFree to reviseFree to remixFree to redistributeThe question becomes, then, what is the relationship between these additional capabilities and what we know about effective teaching and learning? How can we extend, revise, and remix our pedagogy based on these additional capabilities?

      I look at this and think immediatly about the Git model of allowing people to not only fork and reuse/redistribute pieces, but what about the ability to do pull requests to take improvements and push them back up the the source so that everyone potentially benefits?

  14. Sep 2020
    1. The initials fa in the class refer to Font Awesome, an open- source set of icons created by Dave Gandy,23 which further links this project to the open- source community and its ethos of collaboration. Font Awesome gives the community icons for making professional- grade web apps, rendering artifacts and objects legible in the contemporary web design ecology

      Font Awesome est une police d'écriture et un outil d'icônes qui se base sur CSS, LESS et SASS (Wikipédia, « Font Awesome », consulté le 22 septembre 2020).

  15. Aug 2020
    1. Open Source flutter Apps permits you to make lovely native apps on iOS and Android from one codebase. The most goal of this repository is to seek out free open supply apps and begin contributive. Be at liberty to contribute to the list, any suggestions square measure welcome!