672 Matching Annotations
  1. Last 7 days
    1. oh by the way did i tell you it's hard like probably it's it's also really hard but i really don't want to stop here on a on a low note

      This is a great video on the reality of open source software. Open source hardware also faces similar funding issues.

      As long as open source is fundamentally dependent on the private sector, it will exist within at best a parasitic relationship. To truly develop an autonomous open source model requires a structural change in funding that allows it to stand alone and apart from corporate sponsorship.

      This is a classic chicken-and-egg situation. We want people to sponsor us, but many of those people also work for the private sector. Governments and NGOs may sponsor us, but they also depend on private sector for tax and donation revenues.

      This requires a much deeper discussion that unpacks the fundamental assumptions that underpin our economic, social and political systems. The structural challenges of funding open source exposes the constraints of our current system.

      Unless we examine the fundamental assumptions by which our current civilization operates, we cannot make the structural changes that would enable open source to reach its full potential, which is maximum access to shared intellectual and material resources for the benefit of all.

    1. Standard algorithms as a reliable engine in SaaS https://en.itpedia.nl/2021/12/06/standaard-algoritmen-als-betrouwbaar-motorblok-in-saas/ The term "Algorithm" has gotten a bad rap in recent years. This is because large tech companies such as Facebook and Google are often accused of threatening our privacy. However, algorithms are an integral part of every application. As is known, SaaS is standard software, which makes use of algorithms just like other software.

      • But what are algorithms anyway?
      • How can we use standard algorithms?
      • How do standard algorithms end up in our software?
      • When is software not an algorithm?
  2. Nov 2021
  3. 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.

  4. Sep 2021
    1. (grid 2 325k),
    2. the field of comprehensive community initiatives (CCIs)

      How to evaluate comprehensive community initiatives and using what methods? 1) Lower expectations: Process documentation - lower expectations of evidence of impact 2) Force a Fit: force initiative into accepted evaluative method 3) Let time tell - wait until CCI is "ready" to be evaluated using common methods. FROM THE BOOK: http://www.aspenroundtable.org/vol2/connell.htm

    3. (grid 1 227k),

    Tags

    Annotators

    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.")
  5. 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.”

  6. 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.

  7. 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...

  8. May 2021
    1. You can see the implementation here: https://github.com/sveltejs/sapper/blob/339c417b24e8429d3adc9c9f196bf159a5fce874/runtime/src/server/middleware/get_page_handler.ts#L137
  9. Apr 2021
    1. :structured - Lumberjack::Formatter::StructuredFormatter - crawls the object and applies the formatter recursively to Enumerable objects found in it (arrays, hashes, etc.).
    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.
  10. 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. Goal: Give bug trackers like bugsnag access to sprockets generated source maps.
    2. If you don't mind putting the sourcemap url in the minified JS
    3. minified_url: MINIFIED_URL_PATH, source_map: HTTP::FormData::File.new(LOCAL_SOURCEMAP_PATH)
    4. //= link application.js.map
    5. While I understand orgs wanting not to expose their unminified source, it's security through obscurity (meaning it's not adding any real security).
    6. The only place I can find it is in the sprockets-rails gem. javascript_include_tag calls this: def find_debug_asset(path) if asset = find_asset(path, pipeline: :debug) raise_unless_precompiled_asset asset.logical_path.sub('.debug', '') asset end end
    1. Sentry supports un-minifying JavaScript via Source Maps. This lets you view source code context obtained from stack traces in their original untransformed form, which is particularly useful for debugging minified code (e.g. UglifyJS), or transpiled code from a higher-level language (e.g. TypeScript, ES6).
    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.
    4. Our team is also looking into generating source maps in production/staging for error reporting (via Airbrake).
    5. I want source map in prod too (for error tracking, same as @vincentwoo)
    6. Could you explain your use case in a bit more detail? How are you using source maps without source map comments? Are you uploading them to a bug tracker?
    1. I'm trying to get official time at work to dedicate to source maps, and haven't made much progress there.
    2. Still broken, @cannikin. Nobody's on board to investigate, much less fix it. Please do dig in
    3. Any updates on this one? It makes debugging JS and CSS in the web inspector next to impossible when you can't get any help finding the offending code in your own source files.
    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.
  11. Feb 2021
    1. Source maps eliminate the need to serve these separate files. Instead, a special source map file can be read by the browser to help it understand how to unpack your assets. It "maps" the current, modified asset to its "source" so you can view the source when debugging. This way you can serve assets in development in the exact same way as in production.
    2. Source maps are a major new feature.
    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.
  12. Jan 2021