4 ms·
Is there a reason (Security, Competitive, etc.) that the code wasn't open source from the start?
by nelsonic 6y ago
Is there a reason (Security, Competitive, etc.) that the code wasn't open source from the start?
- buster 6y agoNot wanting to have toxic user requests and issues open for something you do in your spare time could be one good reason.
- oliwarner 6y agoI'm not sure where you get the impression those somehow don't exist if you don't have a bug tracker. They just go to email, or Twitter. For something like this, keeping things private has allowed Troy to work out the best way to do things with complete autonomy. That's really useful if you have the time and resources to get to market on your own. Now it's stable and best security practices are nailed down, he can open it up to a bit of scrutiny and feature bloom.
- msla 6y agoIt's entirely possible to run a Git server which is read-only (for the rest of the world, anyway) and doesn't allow anyone to bother you.
- jcims 6y agoWhat's the point of doing that though? It's just chumming the water for unsolicited feedback.
- majewsky 6y agoIt allows others to easily mirror your code. The original code owner may disappear for any number of reasons (burnout, early retirement, being run over by a bus, etc.).
- msla 6y ago> What's the point of doing that though? It's just chumming the water for unsolicited feedback. You'd do it to prevent feedback.
- hannob 6y agoVery likely just boring reasons like not having thought about it, not having made the code in a way that's easy to publish. Think something like he started the project at some point, never planning for it to become this big. It was probably some code written in a random directory, with no regard for whether test fragments are around, whether it contains test data that maybe shouldn't be public, different pieces that are closely tied to a server config that itself is very specific to what he already had running and would need some documentation to be useful etc. pp.
- WorldMaker 6y agoTroy points out in the article that it started as and has mostly entirely been a series of hacks done in free time, including a lot of done with not enough sleep on long distance plane flights. It sounds reasonable to assume that a lot of it is duct tape and straw wire and that the imposter syndrome "it's not good enough to open source" played some presumably large factor.
- zo1 6y agoWhat would the reason for it being open-source anyways? Unless it's in a state for someone else to use it in their own space/context with separate data, etc, then making it open source is just a marketing/promotion tactic with the side-benefit of maybe having your code audited on some level. The rest is just negatives, tbh.
- nelsonic 6y agoRespectfully, I disagree with your premise/question. Open Source is about way more than marketing/promotion. It's a means to make the world a better place. Unless something needs to be private because its a state secret (security through obscurity), all software should be open source by default. That way all of humanity can benefit from it and we can reduce duplication of effort.
- hannasanarion 6y agoWhat are the negatives? The value of HIBP is in its data, not in its algorithm. They lose nothing by open-sourcing.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]