10 ms·
They were charging $100/yr [1]. Literal peanuts. Actually, that is unfair to the peanuts, it is literal pocket lint. The average cost of a developer is more th
by Veserv 3y ago
They were charging $100/yr [1]. Literal peanuts. Actually, that is unfair to the peanuts, it is literal pocket lint.
The average cost of a developer is more than $100/hr. mold needs to make you 0.05% (not 5%, 0.05%) more productive to directly pay for itself. If mold saves you 13 seconds a day in linking time it directly pays for itself. This ignores the knock on effects of reduced build time shortening the feedback cycle which completely dwarf the direct benefits.
It is ridiculous that such dirt cheap pricing for tools is viewed as a problem. As we saw in a post yesterday [2], this is why they say there is no money is tools.
[1] https://bluewhale.systems/ https://bluewhale.systems/
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36869747 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36869747
- latchkey 3y agoOnly $100/yr? Likely that is the problem then. Who's going to bother filing a P.O. with their mega company for only that amount? It also wasn't paywalled, meaning tons of people probably just added it as a dependency in the CI and just ignored the license restrictions because it wasn't directly part of the shipped binary. There's no good way to enforce that.
- orra 3y ago> and just ignored the license restrictions because it wasn't directly part of the shipped binary. There's no good way to enforce that. There's not anything to enforce. The AGPL allows you to run the application for any purpose. (If you modify the source, you have to make the modified source available to all users, including over the network users.)