5 ms·

"Some crap for free". Come on now. Give credit where credit is due if you're going to talk about balanced scales. React PyTorch Flow React Native Folly Ro

"Some crap for free". Come on now. Give credit where credit is due if you're going to talk about balanced scales. React PyTorch Flow React Native Folly RocksDB llama HHVM Relay Fresco zstd Buck Sapling Redex JSX infer

bastawhiz 3y ago
In fairness, Flow is OSS in name only and almost all major adopters have switched to Typescript after they committed to ignoring the community. Jest was wildly neglected with serious issues for a long time. Yarn shipped with major issues that made it unusable for years, then was handed off to the community. Prepack was "shipped" and immediately killed. JSX has been stagnant despite the community wanting to move the (existing) JSX 2 spec forward. HHVM pivoted to ~abandon PHP and focus exclusively on Hack, leaving many companies to switch away (see: Box). If you're a front-end engineer or dealing with web technologies, Facebook has repeatedly pulled the football away.
- optymizer 3y ago
  It's true that Facebook didn't commit to maintaining these projects on an ongoing basis, but that has nothing to do with the fact that they did release lots of major projects under an open source license, projects written by highly skilled engineers that could have been kept internal. You're free to fork these repos and maintain them yourself if you'd like, and that freedom exists only because the code was made available under a FOSS license in the first place. The alternative to this situation is not "open source code maintained in perpetuity", but "code that was never made open source in the first place". There's no obligation for maintaining or ensuring that the open source code remains useful to you, so the criticism that projects are being open sourced and ignored might be valid, but the criticism that Facebook doesn't release major projects as FOSS is not. We've all been spoiled by the hard work people have been putting in maintaining their FOSS repos, to the point where we now expect it. Most FOSS licenses include wording such as: THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED “AS IS” and that's what these repos are: code provided to you as is, free of charge and no strings attached (other than what the license specifies).
jonathankoren 3y ago
Everything run and controlled by exactly one major company. Not so much open source, as faux-pen source.
- optymizer 3y ago
  What are you talking about? You can fork the code and go nuts. There's an open source license attached to the code. It's the definition of free and open source code. Jesus we're getting into demented territory here.
  - jonathankoren 3y ago
    There’s a big difference between theory and practice though. If there’s not actually a community of developers, then the project dies. We’ve all seen fauxpen source projects close up shop immediately after their corporate developer deems them useless. Or better yet, actively reject all external contributions.
    - surgical_fire 3y ago
      Can people still fork the project and move it forward? If they can do it, it's OSS through and through. If the company decides to withdraw support and the project dies, it's not the fault of the company. The community was just not interested in embracing it.
    - optymizer 3y ago
      The [GNU] Free Software Definition The free software definition presents the criteria for whether a particular software program qualifies as free software. A program is free software if the program's users have the four essential freedoms: * The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0). * The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others (freedom 2) * The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
benatkin 3y ago
These are genuinely not interesting except PyTorch which thankfully is now a project of The Linux Foundation.
- int_19h 3y ago
  LLaMA is genuinely not interesting?
  - benatkin 3y ago
    im rooting for TensorFlow
- optymizer 3y ago
  Ah, so it doesn't count as open source unless it's interesting for you.
  - benatkin 3y ago
    I think you misunderstood the word crap in your original comment. It has several meanings including stuff.

bastawhiz 3y ago

In fairness, Flow is OSS in name only and almost all major adopters have switched to Typescript after they committed to ignoring the community. Jest was wildly neglected with serious issues for a long time. Yarn shipped with major issues that made it unusable for years, then was handed off to the community. Prepack was "shipped" and immediately killed. JSX has been stagnant despite the community wanting to move the (existing) JSX 2 spec forward. HHVM pivoted to ~abandon PHP and focus exclusively on Hack, leaving many companies to switch away (see: Box). If you're a front-end engineer or dealing with web technologies, Facebook has repeatedly pulled the football away.

optymizer 3y ago
It's true that Facebook didn't commit to maintaining these projects on an ongoing basis, but that has nothing to do with the fact that they did release lots of major projects under an open source license, projects written by highly skilled engineers that could have been kept internal. You're free to fork these repos and maintain them yourself if you'd like, and that freedom exists only because the code was made available under a FOSS license in the first place. The alternative to this situation is not "open source code maintained in perpetuity", but "code that was never made open source in the first place". There's no obligation for maintaining or ensuring that the open source code remains useful to you, so the criticism that projects are being open sourced and ignored might be valid, but the criticism that Facebook doesn't release major projects as FOSS is not. We've all been spoiled by the hard work people have been putting in maintaining their FOSS repos, to the point where we now expect it. Most FOSS licenses include wording such as: THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED “AS IS” and that's what these repos are: code provided to you as is, free of charge and no strings attached (other than what the license specifies).

jonathankoren 3y ago

Everything run and controlled by exactly one major company. Not so much open source, as faux-pen source.

optymizer 3y ago
What are you talking about? You can fork the code and go nuts. There's an open source license attached to the code. It's the definition of free and open source code. Jesus we're getting into demented territory here.
- jonathankoren 3y ago
  There’s a big difference between theory and practice though. If there’s not actually a community of developers, then the project dies. We’ve all seen fauxpen source projects close up shop immediately after their corporate developer deems them useless. Or better yet, actively reject all external contributions.
  - surgical_fire 3y ago
    Can people still fork the project and move it forward? If they can do it, it's OSS through and through. If the company decides to withdraw support and the project dies, it's not the fault of the company. The community was just not interested in embracing it.
  - optymizer 3y ago
    The [GNU] Free Software Definition The free software definition presents the criteria for whether a particular software program qualifies as free software. A program is free software if the program's users have the four essential freedoms: * The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0). * The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others (freedom 2) * The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

benatkin 3y ago

These are genuinely not interesting except PyTorch which thankfully is now a project of The Linux Foundation.

int_19h 3y ago
LLaMA is genuinely not interesting?
- benatkin 3y ago
  im rooting for TensorFlow
optymizer 3y ago
Ah, so it doesn't count as open source unless it's interesting for you.
- benatkin 3y ago
  I think you misunderstood the word crap in your original comment. It has several meanings including stuff.