Hey remember the 2000s?
Whatever happened to paying money for a "pro" version?
Have they thought of making it voluntary? DON'T make "funding" a dependency, but mention that it exists, and use it if it is installed. I don't use npm, but (I know debian would be HIGHLY unlikely to do this...) *if* aptitude got an option to promote packages and throw some money to advertisers, I'd go for it.
Even when the availability of literature, art and music was constrained by the technology of the time, the vast majority of creators were never rewarded in proportion to their effort.
With digital goods, the potential supply is near enough infinite compared to the size of the potential demand. Anyone can make it and some of it will be good enough on the basis that you approach having sufficient monkeys and keyboards to solve the Shakespeare problem, possibly with the help of a bit of AI.
Persuading people to pay for value that arises deliberately when there is value that arises accidentally is going to be pretty well impossible in future.
In 2003 Sony put forward a patent so that you could skip adverts by standing up from the couch and shouting the brand name (such as yelling "McDonalds!").
Absolutely should NPM have adverts, and every time the developer pulls a dependency down from it, they should have to stand up and shout away the advert.
The world is becoming a magical place XD
Making an open source business model sustainable is nothing new. During the 90s it were companies like RedHat which figured out that combining open source, proprietary code and services was a good mix. Advertising is more the Google model that popped up years later.
Unfortunately, 'just slap some ads on it' is only a viable strategy if your business is called 'Google', and even there one has to question the long-term viability. Spending some thought on what it is that your customers actually want, and how one could generate revenue off it should be preferable, if only because - surprisingly - customers don't like looking at ads.
Meh Npm is just a me2 package manager for those who thought Ruby on rails was more than a flash in the pan and then jumped ship to node, who are furiously reading python for dummies now to be at the vanguard of medium techno regurgitation articles, while working out of Starbucks playing at startups. Everyone else just gets on with it using boring c#, java, c or for those who know no better php (come back vbscript all is forgiven, honestly maintaining an asp classic site I developed 20 years ago was so much less brain damaging than trying to get a filter box to default to closed in the current woocommerce codebase (my own fault should refuse to help friends))
So ramble aside I fully agree ;)
> RedHat which figured out that combining open source, proprietary code and services was a good mix.
technical correction: Red Hat was not and is not developing proprietary code, at best it was and is distributing proprietary code (Flash in Ye Olden days, firmware modules now). Usually it was used to run the proprietary code though (Oracle databases were big in the early days).
OK admit NOT having seen it, but 2 words "javascrit" and the name "standard" tells me that it's probably some B.S. "captain obvious wrote it" TRIVIAL module that can be completely OBLITERATED without causing damage to the open source world... (am I right?)
This is what happens when the SHEEPLE become complacent about OPERATING SYSTEMS SERVING UP ADVERTISEMENTS (you know, like Win-10-nic and all of that adware on phones). Next stop, the TV screen like you see in Idiocracy, which is like a 50" screen but only about 25" is actual content - ADS ALL AROUND with moving pictures and "click me" flashing etc. to the point where you just put the blinders on and ignore it all anyway.
From the article: many people who maintain open source projects have complained that companies and individuals take advantage of their labor and profit from it without giving something back
Open source has SEVERAL benefits to the author, some not so obvious:
a) proof of work/ability - people can see how you code, how you engineer things
b) public project management - if you manage one, your management abilities are on display
c) indirect payment - if you write open source, and you use open source, assume that your efforts of making open source are "paying" for the open source stuff you use already. You're "contributing".
that aside from just making something useful avaiilble for others. I've been trying to put trivial utilities online for others to use as sample code, even. At some point someone may find them useful, even if it's just sample code. And if I'm not doing anything special with those utilities, might as well put them on github or wherever and say "here are some useful things, use however you want".
But injecting ads in a COMMAND LINE UTILITY? That is WORSE than NAGWARE!!!
A big fat FAIL to the author who DARED to inject ads into a command line utility! SHAME! (and I bet your not-so-important library is just TRIVIAL CAPTAIN OBVIOUS stuff... without me even looking at it!)
Ok out of curiosity I found the thing in order to confirm my suspicions. I was VERY close...
It's a worthless utility that could be done by other existing utilities, except they won't have the DRACONIAN WRONG ATTITUDE like THIS (from the docs):
"I disagree with rule X, can you change it?
That kinda says it all.
FreeBSD has the 'indent' utility. what more would you need??
no _WONDER_ he had the CHUTZPAH to put ADS in the command line! It's the *SAME* kind of thinkiing that has brought us (*ahem* finger-crack)
a) 2D FLATTY McFLATFACE FLATSO [and take away ALL user customization and alternatives]
b) ADWARE built into the OS
d) monolithic scripting libraries "you must use" or you're accused of having "spaghetti code"
f) Change for the Sake of Change™ because WE FEEL™
worth a nuke explosion icon. I _HATE_ this kind of CRAP
Easy, no css no java script, don't nest block items more than 3 deep looks crap though :P
But truthfully yeah u can do it js free it's just v difficult to add it to a layout if it's not baked in from the get go, inline css and lots of!important statements, most of the optimisations u find online are retro fit quick fixes for layouts failing uat due to bad pingdom or lighthouse reports
"Maintainers are just starting to wake up to our own power. Expect to be surprised. This certainly won’t be the last open source funding experiment."
This sounds too much like a threat for my liking. Before you call your brothers to arms you'd better be very sure of where the power really resides.
I was going to add the same, if you're going to give it away for free, expect people to use it for free.
If you're saying free for private use, add protections to detect corporate use.
End of the day, don't cry if what you've posted publicly is used by the public and your tip jar isn't paying the rent.
Expecting to receive revenue directly from developing or maintaining open source sorta defeats the point, doesn't it? It's like expecting to become rich by being a movie star. 99% of people who move to Hollywood to become a star find themselves waiting tables or doing other non-acting jobs for the rest of their lives. 0.9% get repeat work as extras (jeering crowd member 5, zombie-horde zombie 29), maybe even enough to live on. 0.09% get regular work as secondary characters or B-movies and do "ok". 0.001% are successful and earn a good living, maybe even become rich.
Making revenue indirectly is where I'd expect it to be at.
For example, academically - teaching/training about the open source you are a developer on. Or on the lecture circuit, being paid to present keynotes at conferences, or to corporations, etc. That is, you use your reputation as an open source developer to generate revenue.
Or, for most, a company that uses open source decides to hire some developers (or contract another company to do so) to work for the company who's work is on open source because the company uses it therefore wants to make sure it has a certain level of direct support (staff who maintain it), e.g. RedHat. In this way you are making money as a professional developer, who happens to have been assigned a task from their paymasters that involves working on open source projects.
I'm sorry, you're submitting code that is open and free and you're whining about not getting paid for it ?
That's not how it works. You contribute to Open Source because you want to make things better for everyone, not because you want to get paid. If getting paid is your goal, then close-source it. Make a product and sell it and find out just how useful your code is watching the money roll in (or not).
I'm sick of these people hijacking a public-good-oriented project in order to make money.
For anyone accustomed to more mature build tools, the defining characteristic of npm is the way it emits an avalanche of messages, many of them irrelevant or misleading*. I don't suppose anybody reads them all unless something has gone wrong, in which case you won't be in a receptive frame of mind for ads.
Also, I've always assumed that the secret of internet advertising is that the cost-per-impression is low but the number of impressions is high. This sounds like you'd be lucky to achieve 100 impressions in a day.
* It's particularly bizarre when it follows a shoal of errors with a comforting assurance that you can ignore the errors as long as the final message is SUCCESS.
If you write a "Free" (as in speech) piece of software you typically don't have to maintain it for other people. You write it, make it work for you and perhaps for the people you care about, but any "power user" is expected to modify it for themselves. Of course only a fraction of the users will do so, but that should be more than enough to sustain development.
"Open Source" software, on the other hand, takes the idea of delivering source code and combines that with the traditional model of software creation and distribution. You have one entity that writes and maintains the code, but the users are not supposed to really take part in it.
Automatic dependency management tools like npm actually follow more the "Open Source" aspect of it. You have packages which are maintained by a few people and you use without actually looking at their code. As with any dependency this brings risks. Since such tools make it so easy to add dozends of dependencies nobody stops to think about the risks any more. That's how you get tiny libraries doing trivial things that nobody checks for malware.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019