4 ms·

I don't think there was ever an intention to obscure work, maliciously or otherwise. This project started because developers started developing, not googling or

I don't think there was ever an intention to obscure work, maliciously or otherwise. This project started because developers started developing, not googling or searching github. To be fair, the "fancy website" is a byproduct of designers who like to make stuff look good, and the rest of Showoff's team caring very much about not just making stuff that works (of which they make a lot, much of which is hidden away in obscurity), but about making it easy for people to use who wouldn't perhaps take on the task themselves—and I don't think there is anything at all wrong with that. However, I don't think it is fair to imply creating this tool (and its website) was a product of caring about money, or duplicating and obscuring your (or anyone else's) efforts. It is like many other ideas out there that came from a real need, hacking it together, and then asking if people might find it useful enough to pay for it. That's not a reason to disparage or diminish a job well done. In the end, it looks like Showoff's also brought attention to your project, pagekite, and plenty of other ways people have shared to do the same thing. Today was the first time I'd heard of localtunnel, but I've done this same bit of showing off localhost before for clients and coworkers on my own--and it's a bit like splitting hairs to call it duplication. Hackers hack. It's what we do. I definitely like open sourcing when it makes sense. But I also like to eat and have a roof over my head. Open source does not hold a monopoly on good intentions.

HerraBRE 16y ago
I totally agree, this thread is probably the best exposure any of our projects (I'm the PageKite guy) could ask for. The idea is clearly communicated, pros and cons and alternatives discussed... and now it's a tiny bit easier to explain to people what we are doing. Hats off to the Showoff team for a job well done! :-)
- progrium 16y ago
  You're both right. However, if I didn't complain as much, my project probably wouldn't have doubled in GitHub watches. ;) It's great to have the idea validated, especially since mine and showoff.io's user experience are nearly identical. And this will force me to make a pretty homepage and add features. So now that I've complained, I don't think I can complain much more.
progrium 16y ago
I guess I can't blame you for philosophical differences. Personally, I do a lot of research before investing my time in building something. Not only do I try to avoid NIH, but I prefer investing my time in clever and useful things not done before -- I tend to think I'm good at producing novel things. I suppose others doing something similar a year later and getting more attention comes with the territory. Now... open source vs commercial, that's a whole different discussion (although probably not what you'd expect).
- bobwaycott 16y ago
  NIH is a willful decision to create something that already exists and is fully known to all interested parties, but summarily rejected on the basis that it is ... wait for it ... Not Invented Here. Sometimes, an identical result issues from identical circumstances wholly independently and honestly--leaving the world with nearly identical objects that attempt to solve an identical problem in an identical way. Casually suggesting NIH can be an insult to the intellectual & creative abilities of a team. Sometimes it is warranted. Other times, it is not. I believe most guys and gals in the developer community are astute enough to ferret out NIH and ignore it. P.S. On the other hand, you have a very impressive set of github repos. Kudos. You have successfully made me both care and jealous that I never get around to open-sourcing anything because I never feel like any side project is perfect enough to let others see (and because most of what I work on is closed-source for clients). Sad.
  - progrium 16y ago
    Sorry to bring up NIH so willy-nilly. Ultimately, you guys did an inspiring job and from what I can tell of implementation you did it even more elegantly than I did. The whole simultaneous invention thing is really interesting to me. It was covered in two great books, What Technology Wants and Where Good Ideas Come From. Both seem to imply that the more utility something has in the "adjacent possible", the more likely it will be invented by many people in roughly the same time period. This actually quite frustrates me about technology! What's worse is that this phenomenon will only increase over time. And because it's about utility (never mind the illusion of unique "UX" of products now), there is little room for expression or creating something unique to you that matters.

HerraBRE 16y ago

I totally agree, this thread is probably the best exposure any of our projects (I'm the PageKite guy) could ask for. The idea is clearly communicated, pros and cons and alternatives discussed... and now it's a tiny bit easier to explain to people what we are doing. Hats off to the Showoff team for a job well done! :-)

progrium 16y ago
You're both right. However, if I didn't complain as much, my project probably wouldn't have doubled in GitHub watches. ;) It's great to have the idea validated, especially since mine and showoff.io's user experience are nearly identical. And this will force me to make a pretty homepage and add features. So now that I've complained, I don't think I can complain much more.

progrium 16y ago

I guess I can't blame you for philosophical differences. Personally, I do a lot of research before investing my time in building something. Not only do I try to avoid NIH, but I prefer investing my time in clever and useful things not done before -- I tend to think I'm good at producing novel things. I suppose others doing something similar a year later and getting more attention comes with the territory. Now... open source vs commercial, that's a whole different discussion (although probably not what you'd expect).

bobwaycott 16y ago
NIH is a willful decision to create something that already exists and is fully known to all interested parties, but summarily rejected on the basis that it is ... wait for it ... Not Invented Here. Sometimes, an identical result issues from identical circumstances wholly independently and honestly--leaving the world with nearly identical objects that attempt to solve an identical problem in an identical way. Casually suggesting NIH can be an insult to the intellectual & creative abilities of a team. Sometimes it is warranted. Other times, it is not. I believe most guys and gals in the developer community are astute enough to ferret out NIH and ignore it. P.S. On the other hand, you have a very impressive set of github repos. Kudos. You have successfully made me both care and jealous that I never get around to open-sourcing anything because I never feel like any side project is perfect enough to let others see (and because most of what I work on is closed-source for clients). Sad.
- progrium 16y ago
  Sorry to bring up NIH so willy-nilly. Ultimately, you guys did an inspiring job and from what I can tell of implementation you did it even more elegantly than I did. The whole simultaneous invention thing is really interesting to me. It was covered in two great books, What Technology Wants and Where Good Ideas Come From. Both seem to imply that the more utility something has in the "adjacent possible", the more likely it will be invented by many people in roughly the same time period. This actually quite frustrates me about technology! What's worse is that this phenomenon will only increase over time. And because it's about utility (never mind the illusion of unique "UX" of products now), there is little room for expression or creating something unique to you that matters.