4 ms·
You seem to be implying that it is bad because it is marketing, and marketing is bad. But not all forms of marketing are bad. This is a classic association fall
by johnfn 1y ago
You seem to be implying that it is bad because it is marketing, and marketing is bad. But not all forms of marketing are bad. This is a classic association fallacy[1]. In this case, Deno can both improve perception of their brand and reclaim "JavaScript" -- it's a win-win.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy
- coldtea 1y ago>But not all forms of marketing are bad. This is a classic association fallacy This is the classic "I'd accused your argument of being a fallacy so you're wrong and I'm right fallacy". Nah, all forms of marketing are bad.
- johnfn 1y agoIt is literally association fallacy. And it is bad because it doesn't lead to a good discussion. Instead of actually talking about whether Deno is doing a good thing, the only way I can respond to "Nah, all forms of marketing are bad." is by saying "no they aren't", which won't change either of our minds and isn't a particularly interesting discussion. You seem to be saying that Deno reclaiming JavaScript is a bad thing? Why?
- coldtea 1y agoWell, ECMAScript is not owned by Oracle, and people can use that.
- afiori 1y agoMarketing is a very wide field, even focusing on good service and good product is a form of marketing
- coldtea 1y ago>focusing on good service and good product is a form of marketing Only if we stretch the meaning of term beyond any reasonable bounds.
- LeFantome 1y agoLetting people know you have a product is marketing. Let people know that they can be trained or educated is marketing. Those are "bad" in your view? Google Summer of Code is bad? Sponsoring the Linux Foundation is bad? Releasing libraries as Open Source is bad? Can you put any colour on your comments. They are difficult to understand.
- coldtea 1y ago>Letting people know you have a product is marketing Google Summer of Code is bad. I don't want a trillion dollar monopoly influencing FOSS. Sponsoring the Linux Foundation can be bad, depending on who does it. Individual people with their donations? Releasing libraries as Open Source is not bad. But if you release them as a corporate behemoth, who employs the people who work of them, and have them assign copyright claims for their contribitions to your corporate entity, it is worse than a community drive FOSS project.
- surajrmal 1y agoGoogle SoC gives legitimacy to working of OSS to equal terms of having a paid internship. Many of the projects probably don't even meet your description of FOSS. The Linux foundation would not exist if only individuals donated to it. Most OSS suffers from a lack of maintainers with time as they rarely are paid and can't make a living from working on it. Company backed OSS doesn't suffer from this. Most popular "community" projects are held together by an assortment of company backed developers.
- coldtea 1y ago>The Linux foundation would not exist if only individuals donated to it Many things would not exist if they had to exist properly. Doesn't mean them existing improperly is good. >Company backed OSS doesn't suffer from this. No, but suffers from a way worse issue: corporate control. Which is why community FOSS has been going downhill since circa 2005.
- 1y ago