3 ms·

I don't doubt there's a crowd that would pay for this tool, but not sure HN is the right target audience. Maybe /r/macapps? I feel like people here likely aren

I don't doubt there's a crowd that would pay for this tool, but not sure HN is the right target audience. Maybe /r/macapps? I feel like people here likely aren't willing to pay for UIs on top of ffmpeg, brew, git, etc. Especially with open source versions: https://github.com/buresdv/Cork https://github.com/buresdv/Cork https://github.com/brunophilipe/Cakebrew https://github.com/brunophilipe/Cakebrew Just my take- could be totally wrong / have a poor perception of who uses HN these days.

cchance 3y ago
THIS! 49$ for a frontend UI for an app thats mostly used with 1 off install/upgrade commands?
hn_acker 3y ago
Note: Cork is not open source. Cork is source-available and under the Commons Clause. As of commit 404943c, the README.md [1] of Cork mistakenly calls Cork "open-source": > Cork is licensed under Commons Clause. > This means that Cork open-source even though the very FAQ for the Commons Clause asserts otherwise [2]: > Is this “Open Source”? > “Open source”, has a specific definition that was written years ago and is stewarded by the Open Source Initiative, which approves Open Source licenses. Applying the Commons Clause to an open source project will mean the source code is available, and meets many of the elements of the Open Source Definition, such as free access to source code, freedom to modify, and freedom to re-distribute, but not all of them. So to avoid confusion, it is best not to call Commons Clause software “open source.” The Commons Clause bans selling of the software and is written in a way that allows the copyright holder to add more restrictions [2]. Cork does add more restrictions [1]: > This means that Cork open-source and you can do whatever you want with Cork's source, like modifying it, contributing to it etc., but you can't sell or distribute Cork or modified versions of it. > Moreover, you can’t distribute compiled versions of Cork without consulting me first. Compiling versions for your personal use is fine. [1] https://github.com/buresdv/Cork https://github.com/buresdv/Cork [2] https://commonsclause.com/ https://commonsclause.com/
tommasongr 3y ago
You might be right... Honestly this is the first place where we received such comments. Definitely our mistake. Although, I think it's worth pointing out that Cakebrew hasn't been actively maintained in 3 years and has never supported Casks. Cork on the other hand is actively developed and supports Casks, but we think the interface and user experience are not the best. For what we've seen so far Brewer X mostly appeals someone who can't get along with poorly designed UIs just to use a free tool.

cchance 3y ago

THIS! 49$ for a frontend UI for an app thats mostly used with 1 off install/upgrade commands?

hn_acker 3y ago

Note: Cork is not open source. Cork is source-available and under the Commons Clause. As of commit 404943c, the README.md [1] of Cork mistakenly calls Cork "open-source": > Cork is licensed under Commons Clause. > This means that Cork open-source even though the very FAQ for the Commons Clause asserts otherwise [2]: > Is this “Open Source”? > “Open source”, has a specific definition that was written years ago and is stewarded by the Open Source Initiative, which approves Open Source licenses. Applying the Commons Clause to an open source project will mean the source code is available, and meets many of the elements of the Open Source Definition, such as free access to source code, freedom to modify, and freedom to re-distribute, but not all of them. So to avoid confusion, it is best not to call Commons Clause software “open source.” The Commons Clause bans selling of the software and is written in a way that allows the copyright holder to add more restrictions [2]. Cork does add more restrictions [1]: > This means that Cork open-source and you can do whatever you want with Cork's source, like modifying it, contributing to it etc., but you can't sell or distribute Cork or modified versions of it. > Moreover, you can’t distribute compiled versions of Cork without consulting me first. Compiling versions for your personal use is fine. [1] https://github.com/buresdv/Cork https://github.com/buresdv/Cork [2] https://commonsclause.com/ https://commonsclause.com/

tommasongr 3y ago

You might be right... Honestly this is the first place where we received such comments. Definitely our mistake. Although, I think it's worth pointing out that Cakebrew hasn't been actively maintained in 3 years and has never supported Casks. Cork on the other hand is actively developed and supports Casks, but we think the interface and user experience are not the best. For what we've seen so far Brewer X mostly appeals someone who can't get along with poorly designed UIs just to use a free tool.