That was somewhat facetious and self-aggrandizing, “cracking” something isn’t always possible or necessary. If your service was unique/useful enough, I would contribute to reverse engineering enough of that backend to replicate its functionality. More likely I’d just refuse to use it and support open alternatives
Unsolicited advice though, giving stuff away generates a huge amount of goodwill that can be way more useful and rewarding than revenue. Contributors instead of employees, love instead of money, place and purpose instead of points in your bank account. I’m not wealthy by any means, but I’m comfortable enough and haven’t had to buy a laptop since high school
Sounded to me like you were firing off at someone for having a private personal project by claiming that you would personally intervene to prevent them making any money from their code, then later you told them that they were being self aggrandizing. That’s how it comes across.
You doubled down on your threat with detail, which doesn’t give readers the context to be able to deduce that you meant to be in the slightest bit self aware or apologetic, so without re-quoting yourself, it came across as hypocritical.
Maybe “sorry, that was somewhat facetious and self-aggrandizing of me” and then not doubling down might have come across better. That’s what I think, anyway.
Pretty sure I was having a normal conversation with someone and you splashed in to call me out for something without a whole lot of thought. There’s no “threat”, none of this is that serious, I wish you peace and introspection
Well I’m petty sure you were coming across as obnoxious and the vote count seems to agree.
If most people are interpreting the things you said earlier in the thread negatively, maybe the cause is in the writer than the reader.
Maybe have another look and see if you mightn’t have written a bit of a sourpost originally, and reconsider your tone next time if you genuinely mean no harm.
Some of us need to earn a living from coding, and I don’t like the idea that you would rather destroy the earning potential of a one-person team than compromise your politics at all even a little bit.
Turn your hatred on the exploitative multinational corporations, not the little guy trying to earn a living from his code.
There’s principles, and there’s actual people, and the people are far, far more important. Don’t be so quick to condemn the little guy for wanting a bit of cash while Besos and the like screw us both over on the daily with billions in their pockets.
People aren’t corporations, and confusing those is partly how America got so extreme in its capitalism.
“petty sure” is right, try another round of edits if you really can’t find anything better to do. The day I start to care how many internet points I’m getting hopefully there’s a friend nearby to log me off. Need to quit engaging with you before I do work up some “hatred” to turn on someone. Zero beef with the guy I was actually talking to, but you kinda suck
The edits are because I mistype stuff or realise that it doesn’t say what I intended when I read through it, or I left something out. Today suggests to me that you might benefit from trying that occasionally. It clearly doesn’t suggest it to you, I see.
The day I start to care how many internet points I’m getting
Dude, the points are evidence that your comment came across badly, no more. Something you could learn from, but it’s increasingly clear you would do or say anything rather than back down. I’m guessing you see apology as weak and admitting your mistakes as defeat or some other fucked up macho fake alpha fragile masculinity bullshit like that.
before I do work up some “hatred” to turn on someone
Oh no! I’m so scared!
Wait, you still think you were being nice or polite or something already? Wow.
you kinda suck
Whereas you’re all sweetness and light. Gotcha.
Need to quit engaging with you
Feel free. I shan’t miss you a great deal.
You could go back to interacting with those friends you were telling me about. Presumably ones that don’t mind you saying you’ll sabotage their income stream because they didn’t live up to your principles.
Sure. But thing is, there’s software out there for which FOSS doesn’t even make much sense.
I’m talking things that are so niche, the total amount of potential users (not customers - that’s a much smaller number) is in the hundreds of thousands, not even millions - most of whom have no say in what software they use, nor does it affect their pay checks.
If I was building, say, accounting software that every company can use, that’d be different, because while still business focused, there’d be a lot more grass roots interest in it. But I’m talking about software where you have to sell it to a bunch of execs, along with support contracts and uptime guarantees, because their entire business is dependent on it functioning properly. I’m also talking about software for one niche of one industry in one country.
The project isn’t useful enough to you, an engineer, to reverse engineer the backend. Nor are there any open alternatives that work. It requires keeping up with regulations, including some that change every year. It’s not that the software itself is super complex magic, it’s that it stops being useful if not well-maintained.
What I have considered, though, is making parts of it open source, and keeping only the “secret sauce” proprietary. The open source parts would be stuff that could be used to build similar software for other niches of the same target industry, whereas the super specific niche stuff and all the regulation compliance stuff (much of which is just for that one niche anyway - other niches have different regulations) would be proprietary. Essentially building a set of FOSS libraries, and a niche proprietary application that uses them to service a specific market. Again, good reason for using a forge where you can have both public and private projects - but of course I could just use CodeBerg for the open source and host the rest of it privately.
I’m only building this in my spare time and fairly slowly because I have to do work that gets me paid though. I don’t know if I’ll ever have an MVP I could show investors or clients.
What I have considered, though, is making parts of it open source, and keeping only the “secret sauce” proprietary. The open source parts would be stuff that could be used to build similar software for other niches of the same target industry, whereas the super specific niche stuff and all the regulation compliance stuff (much of which is just for that one niche anyway - other niches have different regulations) would be proprietary.
This seems perfectly reasonable and I wish you the best of luck. Just don’t expect anyone to provide the infrastructure for your proprietary secret sauce for free!
Well, github would provide it for free. Their business model is that just hosting shit is free, but costing them actual server resources means you gotta pay 'em. And that’s a sensible business model IMO, but unfortunately they’re also owned by Microsoft, which I didn’t even like 2 decades ago, let alone now that they’re pushing AI.
Guess what I’m hoping is for Github alternatives, potentially based on Forgejo, to adopt a similar business model (free storage, paid runners beyond a very limited free tier essentially), without the whole using everyone’s code for AI training part.
I also have no problem with a small recurring donation. But the ironic part here is that I wouldn’t want to use a forge that’s so small that it NEEDS the donations. I don’t want it to disappear after a year.
Someone might spin that up, but it feels unlikely. Github was always kinda subsidized as a power play on MS’s part, and now that it’s well established enough they’re squeezing it for ROI. An instance that doesn’t need your donations still needs resources to perpetuate itself from somewhere, I’d personally rather depend on infrastructure that was transparent about that (whether paid or donation based) than be treated as the product
Github was always kinda subsidized as a power play on MS’s part
Github existed for like 10 years pre-microsoft. Though they did get an investment from Shitreessen Fuckwitz after a few years. Before that, they actually earned enough money on their own to keep the lights on.
An instance that doesn’t need your donations still needs resources to perpetuate itself from somewhere
I meant more that I’m willing to use an instance after it already has enough recurring donations OR paid users to sustain itself. Because at that point they don’t need to treat you as a product to save their own asses, nor are they likely to go bankrupt. So I meant the ironic part is that I’m willing to pay, but for an instance that’s doing well enough that it doesn’t desperately need my money to keep the lights on.
I guess I’m just a little more pessimistic at this point, don’t actually know the specifics of their financials but assumed github had been operating at a loss the whole time. That’s pretty typical for startup stuff in general and especially so for “free” services, if it seems too good to be true it probably is type thing. I see forgejo’s transparency and ideological commitment to open source as a defense against that type of behaviour cropping up in the future, hence “feature not bug”. Like you said, it’d be trivial to host your private repositories elsewhere or for someone to spin up their own paid instance for commercial use. I’d be a little suspicious of what was keeping the lights on if someone directly replicated github’s model because, well… look how it’s going!
That was somewhat facetious and self-aggrandizing, “cracking” something isn’t always possible or necessary. If your service was unique/useful enough, I would contribute to reverse engineering enough of that backend to replicate its functionality. More likely I’d just refuse to use it and support open alternatives
Unsolicited advice though, giving stuff away generates a huge amount of goodwill that can be way more useful and rewarding than revenue. Contributors instead of employees, love instead of money, place and purpose instead of points in your bank account. I’m not wealthy by any means, but I’m comfortable enough and haven’t had to buy a laptop since high school
You:
Also you:
My brother in christ that’s the exact line I was referring to, what else in the wide world of reading comprehension do you think I was talking about?
Sounded to me like you were firing off at someone for having a private personal project by claiming that you would personally intervene to prevent them making any money from their code, then later you told them that they were being self aggrandizing. That’s how it comes across.
You doubled down on your threat with detail, which doesn’t give readers the context to be able to deduce that you meant to be in the slightest bit self aware or apologetic, so without re-quoting yourself, it came across as hypocritical.
Maybe “sorry, that was somewhat facetious and self-aggrandizing of me” and then not doubling down might have come across better. That’s what I think, anyway.
Pretty sure I was having a normal conversation with someone and you splashed in to call me out for something without a whole lot of thought. There’s no “threat”, none of this is that serious, I wish you peace and introspection
Well I’m petty sure you were coming across as obnoxious and the vote count seems to agree.
If most people are interpreting the things you said earlier in the thread negatively, maybe the cause is in the writer than the reader.
Maybe have another look and see if you mightn’t have written a bit of a sourpost originally, and reconsider your tone next time if you genuinely mean no harm.
Some of us need to earn a living from coding, and I don’t like the idea that you would rather destroy the earning potential of a one-person team than compromise your politics at all even a little bit.
Turn your hatred on the exploitative multinational corporations, not the little guy trying to earn a living from his code.
There’s principles, and there’s actual people, and the people are far, far more important. Don’t be so quick to condemn the little guy for wanting a bit of cash while Besos and the like screw us both over on the daily with billions in their pockets.
People aren’t corporations, and confusing those is partly how America got so extreme in its capitalism.
“petty sure” is right, try another round of edits if you really can’t find anything better to do. The day I start to care how many internet points I’m getting hopefully there’s a friend nearby to log me off. Need to quit engaging with you before I do work up some “hatred” to turn on someone. Zero beef with the guy I was actually talking to, but you kinda suck
The edits are because I mistype stuff or realise that it doesn’t say what I intended when I read through it, or I left something out. Today suggests to me that you might benefit from trying that occasionally. It clearly doesn’t suggest it to you, I see.
Dude, the points are evidence that your comment came across badly, no more. Something you could learn from, but it’s increasingly clear you would do or say anything rather than back down. I’m guessing you see apology as weak and admitting your mistakes as defeat or some other fucked up macho fake alpha fragile masculinity bullshit like that.
Oh no! I’m so scared!
Wait, you still think you were being nice or polite or something already? Wow.
Whereas you’re all sweetness and light. Gotcha.
Feel free. I shan’t miss you a great deal.
You could go back to interacting with those friends you were telling me about. Presumably ones that don’t mind you saying you’ll sabotage their income stream because they didn’t live up to your principles.
“all a pissing contest gets you is covered in piss”
Sure. But thing is, there’s software out there for which FOSS doesn’t even make much sense.
I’m talking things that are so niche, the total amount of potential users (not customers - that’s a much smaller number) is in the hundreds of thousands, not even millions - most of whom have no say in what software they use, nor does it affect their pay checks.
If I was building, say, accounting software that every company can use, that’d be different, because while still business focused, there’d be a lot more grass roots interest in it. But I’m talking about software where you have to sell it to a bunch of execs, along with support contracts and uptime guarantees, because their entire business is dependent on it functioning properly. I’m also talking about software for one niche of one industry in one country.
The project isn’t useful enough to you, an engineer, to reverse engineer the backend. Nor are there any open alternatives that work. It requires keeping up with regulations, including some that change every year. It’s not that the software itself is super complex magic, it’s that it stops being useful if not well-maintained.
What I have considered, though, is making parts of it open source, and keeping only the “secret sauce” proprietary. The open source parts would be stuff that could be used to build similar software for other niches of the same target industry, whereas the super specific niche stuff and all the regulation compliance stuff (much of which is just for that one niche anyway - other niches have different regulations) would be proprietary. Essentially building a set of FOSS libraries, and a niche proprietary application that uses them to service a specific market. Again, good reason for using a forge where you can have both public and private projects - but of course I could just use CodeBerg for the open source and host the rest of it privately.
I’m only building this in my spare time and fairly slowly because I have to do work that gets me paid though. I don’t know if I’ll ever have an MVP I could show investors or clients.
This seems perfectly reasonable and I wish you the best of luck. Just don’t expect anyone to provide the infrastructure for your proprietary secret sauce for free!
Well, github would provide it for free. Their business model is that just hosting shit is free, but costing them actual server resources means you gotta pay 'em. And that’s a sensible business model IMO, but unfortunately they’re also owned by Microsoft, which I didn’t even like 2 decades ago, let alone now that they’re pushing AI.
Guess what I’m hoping is for Github alternatives, potentially based on Forgejo, to adopt a similar business model (free storage, paid runners beyond a very limited free tier essentially), without the whole using everyone’s code for AI training part.
I also have no problem with a small recurring donation. But the ironic part here is that I wouldn’t want to use a forge that’s so small that it NEEDS the donations. I don’t want it to disappear after a year.
Someone might spin that up, but it feels unlikely. Github was always kinda subsidized as a power play on MS’s part, and now that it’s well established enough they’re squeezing it for ROI. An instance that doesn’t need your donations still needs resources to perpetuate itself from somewhere, I’d personally rather depend on infrastructure that was transparent about that (whether paid or donation based) than be treated as the product
Github existed for like 10 years pre-microsoft. Though they did get an investment from Shitreessen Fuckwitz after a few years. Before that, they actually earned enough money on their own to keep the lights on.
I meant more that I’m willing to use an instance after it already has enough recurring donations OR paid users to sustain itself. Because at that point they don’t need to treat you as a product to save their own asses, nor are they likely to go bankrupt. So I meant the ironic part is that I’m willing to pay, but for an instance that’s doing well enough that it doesn’t desperately need my money to keep the lights on.
I guess I’m just a little more pessimistic at this point, don’t actually know the specifics of their financials but assumed github had been operating at a loss the whole time. That’s pretty typical for startup stuff in general and especially so for “free” services, if it seems too good to be true it probably is type thing. I see forgejo’s transparency and ideological commitment to open source as a defense against that type of behaviour cropping up in the future, hence “feature not bug”. Like you said, it’d be trivial to host your private repositories elsewhere or for someone to spin up their own paid instance for commercial use. I’d be a little suspicious of what was keeping the lights on if someone directly replicated github’s model because, well… look how it’s going!