2 ms·
> A great public codebase likely needs to be more understandable, more generic, more self guided, more error proof, more auditable, and more pluggable. Addition
by mort96 2y ago
> A great public codebase likely needs to be more understandable, more generic, more self guided, more error proof, more auditable, and more pluggable. Additionally, supporting popular open source at all comes with a deluge of requests, demands, audits, and obligations.
Literally none of that is necessary to publish a source code tarball. You keep moving goalposts. You don't need heavy community involvement and support self-hosting and all that just to publish your source code.
I mean feature requests will come, sure, but people working with closed source software receive those too.
- collingreen 2y agoMaybe you're moving the goalposts - the OP took down their very popular, high use open source project that they use as a metering tool because the overhead was too high. My impression from the post and all the comments from the ceo and cto is that they are unwilling to just throw code over the fence without putting enough care into it to make sure it works well and reflects positively on them. Yes, obviously, it is essentially no effort to just tar a folder and put it on the internet if you do literally nothing else and don't care at all what happens next.
- mort96 2y agoI'm literally only saying that they didn't need to closed-source it, it's not all or nothing. That's my entire point. I know that maintaining an open source project the way they were doing is a lot of work, but if they want to stop doing that work, they have other choices than "make it closed source".
- collingreen 2y agoThat's true!