4 ms·

I was coming to ask the same thing? I wish someone just had a site showing a big list of neat projects. It looks like this is pretty sparse too.

zdragnar 7y ago
So other people can contribute via pull requests, or if the person who put it up doesn't maintain it, someone else can fork it and full dead projects? Also, if there is a problem with rhe inclusion of something on the list (severe vulnerability that isn't patched, etc) people can have a conversation about it in the issues section. IMHO, this is a better option than random blog posts or single-page-domain-spam for the above reasons. I dont know if a new "awesome X" repo is appropriate for HN but they are certainly useful for plenty of people given their popularity, and I have seen all of the above happen in other instances, so they seem better to me than a run-of-the-mill blog post or single page domain.
- romaniitedomum 7y ago
  I can't tell if you're being entirely serious here. But if you are, then it strikes me as a fairly damning indictment of the state of the web that cooperating on editing a list of links requires (or is thought to require) all the unwieldy arcana of git. No so long ago, a resource like this would be a simple text file that a few interested people would publish. If someone wanted to change it, they'd email one of the maintainers. If someone didn't want to bother maintaining it, someone else would publish their copy instead. But now, in 2019, publishing a text file of links requires a notoriously fickle and complex source code control system, a system designed to enable asynchronous kernel development, and a centrally managed social network site. And people imagine that this is progress.
  - tomhoward 7y ago
    You've clearly got a strongly-held point of view on this, but for a counter-point, this right here is the main point whose importance you diminish: > If someone wanted to change it, they'd email one of the maintainers In the modern world (given how busy everyone is and how overflowing everyone's inbox is), in practice, this likely translates to: the document ceases to be maintained. > it strikes me as a fairly damning indictment of the state of the web That's one take. Alternately: how great it is that an infrastructure and culture now exists in which documents like this can be published and actively maintained by multiple people, without the friction-points of email & FTP, and without the failure-points of individuals and their contactability & availability.

zdragnar 7y ago

So other people can contribute via pull requests, or if the person who put it up doesn't maintain it, someone else can fork it and full dead projects? Also, if there is a problem with rhe inclusion of something on the list (severe vulnerability that isn't patched, etc) people can have a conversation about it in the issues section. IMHO, this is a better option than random blog posts or single-page-domain-spam for the above reasons. I dont know if a new "awesome X" repo is appropriate for HN but they are certainly useful for plenty of people given their popularity, and I have seen all of the above happen in other instances, so they seem better to me than a run-of-the-mill blog post or single page domain.

romaniitedomum 7y ago
I can't tell if you're being entirely serious here. But if you are, then it strikes me as a fairly damning indictment of the state of the web that cooperating on editing a list of links requires (or is thought to require) all the unwieldy arcana of git. No so long ago, a resource like this would be a simple text file that a few interested people would publish. If someone wanted to change it, they'd email one of the maintainers. If someone didn't want to bother maintaining it, someone else would publish their copy instead. But now, in 2019, publishing a text file of links requires a notoriously fickle and complex source code control system, a system designed to enable asynchronous kernel development, and a centrally managed social network site. And people imagine that this is progress.
- tomhoward 7y ago
  You've clearly got a strongly-held point of view on this, but for a counter-point, this right here is the main point whose importance you diminish: > If someone wanted to change it, they'd email one of the maintainers In the modern world (given how busy everyone is and how overflowing everyone's inbox is), in practice, this likely translates to: the document ceases to be maintained. > it strikes me as a fairly damning indictment of the state of the web That's one take. Alternately: how great it is that an infrastructure and culture now exists in which documents like this can be published and actively maintained by multiple people, without the friction-points of email & FTP, and without the failure-points of individuals and their contactability & availability.