3 ms·
Like others in the thread, I'm entranced by the idea. However, the lack of github links for the "open source" of this ASIC have put me right off of becoming a b
by jepler 5y ago
Like others in the thread, I'm entranced by the idea. However, the lack of github links for the "open source" of this ASIC have put me right off of becoming a backer. It's a dang shame that we have to spend time & effort in this thread saying 'maybe _this_ is the source -- no, I think it's _that_'.
In my view, actually showing your source (with all its warts and TODOs) is something you need to do from the moment you're out in public talking about how your product is Open Source, not hopefully sometime later. Basically, we've arrived at the moment where either your open source is on github, or it needs to be treated as not open source. Otherwise, especially if the fulfillment end goes pear shaped, it's way too easy to fall into a trap where the source simply never gets released despite all your initial intentions.
- voakbasda 5y agoI love to see GitHub used as a generic term for a hosted repository service. I would enjoy seeing that trademark continue its march to become a completely generic term. There are more options than GitHub for publishing source code. If anything, publishing on GitHub is an instant strike against openness, because Microsoft should not be trusted. Even GitLab would be a better place to publish, iff only as a mirror. So, yes, I agree. Lack of readily available source code on even the lowest common denominator hosting service should be a huge red flag when evaluating any project like this.