13 ms·

Not very respectful of https://github.com/chrisallenlane/cheat https://github.com/chrisallenlane/cheat to use the same name. The original cheat does exactly th

Not very respectful of https://github.com/chrisallenlane/cheat https://github.com/chrisallenlane/cheat to use the same name. The original cheat does exactly the same thing, has a big following and more stars, and has existed for years. I've opened an issue re: the name conflict https://github.com/chubin/cheat.sh/issues/34 https://github.com/chubin/cheat.sh/issues/34 Afaik these are the big players in the space: - bro: https://github.com/hubsmoke/bro https://github.com/hubsmoke/bro - tldr: https://github.com/tldr-pages/tldr https://github.com/tldr-pages/tldr - cheat: https://github.com/chrisallenlane/cheat https://github.com/chrisallenlane/cheat

klmr 8y ago
How is a similar (not even identical) name a “name conflict”? Even if both were named “cheat”, one is a Unix command, the other is a URL that you access via HTTP (in other words, they occupy different, non-conflicting namespace). What’s more, “cheat” is a fairly natural name for a cheat sheet. In sum, I don’t understand what issue you have with the naming.
mattmanser 8y ago
Cheatsheet is a term of art, not something unique. The word has been in common usage in programming for literally decades before Chris wrote his program. People used to pin them up in their cubicles before the internet existed. Not sure why you're getting outraged about it?
ourmandave 8y ago
tl;dr you're cheatin' bro!
reustle 8y ago
I often wonder how much time people invest in the following before going off on their own: 1. Finding similar open source projects to what they want to exist 2. Digging into the project to see how close it is to what they want 3. Attempting to contribute to bend it to fit their needs How much of these "really similar project" situations are "I want the project to be mine for marketing / brand / control reasons" vs "I didn't know this existed already"
igor_chubin 8y ago
We are of course aware of the beautiful cheat project and we even use it (what is documented in our README.md file), but please keep in mind that: 1. Our project is called cheat.sh and not cheat (for example xterm.js and xterm are two separated projects and xterm existed for decades before xterm.js; should they be renamed too from your point of view?); 2. We are trying to mitigate the impact by using cht.sh where possible; 3. We do not and did not ever use the name to steal, to borrow, or to somehow use popularity of cheat. I do not see any naming conflict actually. The client/command is called cht.sh, does not even have cheat in their name. I am a big fan of the cheat project myself, and I don't want to do any harm for it. Even more, as I said, I would prefer that we cooperate with that project.
- nikisweeting 8y ago
  The reasoning boils down to Google-ability. sh is not a distinct enough term when googling for shell suggestions, because both cheat and cheat.sh will have sh in the results. That is very distinct from xterm.js where xterm-only results are very unlikely to have JS in them. A similar debate played out when the gofish package manager was launched, which conflicted with the fish shell https://github.com/fishworks/gofish/issues/37 https://github.com/fishworks/gofish/issues/37 Anyway, the choice is not mine to make, it just seems like an easy issue that could have been avoided by choosing a name that wasn't already in use.

klmr 8y ago

How is a similar (not even identical) name a “name conflict”? Even if both were named “cheat”, one is a Unix command, the other is a URL that you access via HTTP (in other words, they occupy different, non-conflicting namespace). What’s more, “cheat” is a fairly natural name for a cheat sheet. In sum, I don’t understand what issue you have with the naming.

mattmanser 8y ago

Cheatsheet is a term of art, not something unique. The word has been in common usage in programming for literally decades before Chris wrote his program. People used to pin them up in their cubicles before the internet existed. Not sure why you're getting outraged about it?

ourmandave 8y ago

tl;dr you're cheatin' bro!

reustle 8y ago

I often wonder how much time people invest in the following before going off on their own: 1. Finding similar open source projects to what they want to exist 2. Digging into the project to see how close it is to what they want 3. Attempting to contribute to bend it to fit their needs How much of these "really similar project" situations are "I want the project to be mine for marketing / brand / control reasons" vs "I didn't know this existed already"

igor_chubin 8y ago

We are of course aware of the beautiful cheat project and we even use it (what is documented in our README.md file), but please keep in mind that: 1. Our project is called cheat.sh and not cheat (for example xterm.js and xterm are two separated projects and xterm existed for decades before xterm.js; should they be renamed too from your point of view?); 2. We are trying to mitigate the impact by using cht.sh where possible; 3. We do not and did not ever use the name to steal, to borrow, or to somehow use popularity of cheat. I do not see any naming conflict actually. The client/command is called cht.sh, does not even have cheat in their name. I am a big fan of the cheat project myself, and I don't want to do any harm for it. Even more, as I said, I would prefer that we cooperate with that project.

nikisweeting 8y ago
The reasoning boils down to Google-ability. sh is not a distinct enough term when googling for shell suggestions, because both cheat and cheat.sh will have sh in the results. That is very distinct from xterm.js where xterm-only results are very unlikely to have JS in them. A similar debate played out when the gofish package manager was launched, which conflicted with the fish shell https://github.com/fishworks/gofish/issues/37 https://github.com/fishworks/gofish/issues/37 Anyway, the choice is not mine to make, it just seems like an easy issue that could have been avoided by choosing a name that wasn't already in use.