This, exactly. It's not a developer's job to package their code for every imaginable distro; it's their job to make the build process as simple as possible and let maintainers and users handle the packaging if they want the software. The time spent chasing down the hassles in the post would be better spent thinning the dependencies, if that's remotely feasible.
If developers can’t be bothered to ship their software to my platform, what is stopped someone else from stealing their FOSS (clone and rebrand) and shipping it themselves?
If I’m going to take on maintenance burden then I might as well make it how I want with a fork and take the notoriety.
> what is stopped someone else from stealing their FOSS (clone and rebrand) and shipping it themselves?
Nothing at all. This is not stealing. The term is "forking." It's how GCC got un-stagnated (see egcs), and how we got the ecosystem of alternate wifi firmware (two examples that come readily to mind.)
This is also where Free and Open source diverge: Open Source lets someone block others from forking their fork, whereas Free Software requires that forks remain free to be forked themselves.
> This is also where Free and Open source diverge: Open Source lets someone block others from forking their fork, whereas Free Software requires that forks remain free to be forked themselves.
This is the same tired nonsense hearsay that all the people who got in FOSS as a religion and don't really understand the licensing. The licenses that OSI and FSF approve as FOSS are literally the same and they have to guarantee the same freedoms. OSI is just nicer with industry and have actual professional leadership.
Source available and fair source licenses aren't seen "kosher" by either party.
> licenses that OSI and FSF approve as FOSS are literally the same and they have to guarantee the same freedoms. OSI is just nicer with industry and have actual professional leadership.
OSI vs FSF has nothing to do with the point at hand.
The BSD license permits making proprietary forks. The GPL does not. Those are examples
of the distinction between "open source" and "free software."
> people who got in FOSS as a religion
Oh no! Not religion!
This is a ad-hominem argument based on anti-religious bigotry.
> don't really understand the licensing.
Again ad-hominem.
Quoth Wikipedia [1]
> Free software, libre software, libreware sometimes known as freedom-respecting software is computer software distributed under open-source licenses that allow users to run the software for any purpose as well as to study, change, and distribute it and any adapted versions.
> [...] Computer programs are deemed "free" if they give end-users (not just the developer) ultimate control over the software and, subsequently, over their devices.
> The right to study and modify a computer program entails that the source code—the preferred format for making changes—be made available to users of that program.
The requirement that those distributing the software give to their users the same rights given to themselves is the defining distinction between open source & free software.
> The BSD license permits making proprietary forks. The GPL does not. Those are examples of the distinction between "open source" and "free software."
The FSF and OSI both disagree with you.
The old BSD 4-clause is a FSF approved Free Software License. It is not an OSI-approved Open Source License (because of the advertising clause.) The newer 2- and 3-clause BSD licenses and the GPL are all both FSF Free Software and OSI Open Source licenses. What they do demonstrate is the distinction the FSF makes between copyleft Free Software licenses (which the GPL is), and non-copyleft Free Software licenses (which the BSD Licenses are)
But Free Software and Open Source are almost identical.
"Businesses don't want to have to spend time clarifying the libre/gratis distinction every time they use a a concise shorthand to describe licensing" is a very different claim than the upthread one that the actual terms of the BSD license and the GPL illustrate a substantive difference in meaning between the terms "Free Software" and "Open Source".
But, despite being a non-sequitur, I believe your statement in correct.
I'm not a shadcn user, and so as with any project I'm not familiar with, I'm looking to see if if it's interesting to me. If the post is thoughtful and clear and I like the sense I get of their perspective on programming, then great, tell me more. No guarantees but maybe the writer is someone whose software I'd like to use. Claude doesn't tell me anything except that the writer used Claude.
It's the same as with too marketing-speak, which conceivably this is. Maybe the actual work is good but Sturgeon's law, it's probably crud. If I really needed a UI library or whatever right now then maybe I'd dig deeper but in casual browsing HN mode? No time, catch them later.
So maybe all your maybes but who cares? It's not AI that made me think badly of them: I think badly of all software by default and it takes more than Claude to change my mind.
For me, I don’t care one bit whether the text is AI generated or not. What stood out to me on this one is that they talked about something called shadcn, something called base UI, and something called radix as if they were things that everyone should be familiar with, but failed to consider that a reader might never have heard of any of them. I read for a while to see if they give some clues but nothing was forthcoming so the whole thing might as well have been gibberish.
Usually there's one or two job responsibilities among many, that you can do, but not the way everyone else does them. The ADA requires employers to make reasonable accommodations, and some employers don't want to.
So less, the job requires you to stand all day, and more, once a week or so they ask you make a binder of materials, and the hole puncher they want you to use dislocates your hands (true story). Or, it's a desk job, but you can't get from your desk to the bathroom in your wheelchair unless they widen the aisles between desks (hypothetical).
If the goal to drive the yield on T-notes down, then cut spending and raise taxes. Get the budget into something like balance and the Fed will cut rates, and borrowing costs will fall. You don't need some 3D chess with a manufactured financial crisis.
When your rational explanation involves people shooting themselves in the head to cure a headache, something's off. There's nothing to explain here besides a weak and incompetent leader with a deep need for attention, surrounded by lots of enablers.
> And it’s a healthy wake-up call when someone who knows close to nothing about our fancy stuff designs a system that we would unlikely think of.
I can't tell if the author asked Kasia how she came up with the idea? For all we know she's doing an MBA in the evenings and just wrote a paper on the history of just-in-time manufacturing in the Japanese auto industry.
Is there even a Kasia, or did the author print out that note to establish her invented character just for the benefit of her blog's narrative? Does it really matter?
Oh, there is a real Kasia.
Although she's a person of many talents, I would be genuinely surprised if she spent evenings studying Japanese management methods.
The solution she designed, however, is as if she already knew all of that part of the MBA program :)
Which shows how significant parts of these methods have roots in basic awareness and perceptiveness to how the work gets done. Lean/Agile only codified some of these good practices. Unfortunately, they also petrified a lot of specific techniques. But that's another story.
Perhaps Kasia should be offered a way to participate in core business projects, or a raise, or both. Seems only fair after such praise from colleagues and HN.
We don't need to "offer" that. Anyone can do this. Literally, anyone can make any decision (in a structured manner), so joining a core business initiative is obviously on the list.
Also, she already does participate in core activities. It would be much easier for us to deal with losing a couple of our best engineers than losing Kasia. Which is also a response to some voices in the discussion downplaying the value of the "office manager's" job. I partially blame common perceptions of this job being "just a secretary to everyone," which could be farther from what we have.
Anyone who would downplay the value of an office manager has never appreciated a great office manager. Most offices do not have a competent (if any) office manager, which is something we should all demand of our workplaces.
You wouldn’t want it in the CI pipeline, because any model clever enough to find real issues is also going to find plenty of false positives. That seems like too much friction for most open source projects.
I’m not one of the downvoters, but you’ve linked to a list of forty or fifty different projects, many of which don’t seem relevant to this use-case. It’s not too surprising people have nothing to say besides “ugh, more AI hype.”
It’s Manhattan below 60th, not all of Manhattan, so maybe half the island, and it doesn’t include the FDR. Most of the ways to get to Queens, Brooklyn or Staten Island by car won’t be affected — same for the Bronx obviously.
> Most of the ways to get to Queens, Brooklyn or Staten Island by car won’t be affected — same for the Bronx obviously.
That's incorrect. All of the bridges and tunnels other than GW and Randall's Island (RFK) enter or exit from this new zone. With this new plan, literally all of the ways to get to Manhattan by vehicle will now have a toll. Some will have two.
I suppose if you're willing to take the tiny bridges from the Bronx into Harlem you can still get around tolls, but good luck with that.
Not sure why you’re fighting this so hard, but: GW, Triboro, Whitestone, Throgs Neck, Goethals, Outerbridge, Holland Tunnel, Lincoln Tunnel. Only the last two land in the toll zone. So yes, “most,” and it’s not especially close.
I’m not counting the Brooklyn Bridge, etc, because I was replying to your “ways to enter the city.” The topic as I understood it was “will you pay this toll if your final destination isn’t Manhattan,” and the answer is “Not unless you’re coming from certain parts of New Jersey, and even then you’ve got choices.”
Have a goal, and measure your progress towards that goal. If "get stronger" is enough, great; but if not, find some challenging activity you enjoy and want to improve at, and do the resistance training that will help you get better. Personally I find that much more motivating; just knowing there are health benefits never really did it for me.
Really really important to write down what you do. Progress is not always fast, but if you keep records, you'll see it, and that really helps with motivation.
IMO podcasts and such are not so good for strength training specifically, though for endurance work they're fine. You really want to give full intensity to getting through that last rep (with good form). You're training your ability to push through discomfort as much as you are your muscle's theoretical inherent strength.
