3 ms·
On the latter point, couldn't disagree more. He's saying "fuck you" to the product, not the person, and unilaterally removing extant features to paywall them im
by chownie 1y ago
On the latter point, couldn't disagree more. He's saying "fuck you" to the product, not the person, and unilaterally removing extant features to paywall them imo is poisoning the well far more than a simple FU to a developer ever could?
- jgalt212 1y agoFair enough, but the use of coarse language can also impair the underlying point. i.e. the shock value can derail the reader. For such reasons, The Economist style guide advises against using fancy language when simpler language will suffice.
- librasteve 1y agoerr, fuck is simple
- chownie 1y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tone_policing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tone_policing I don't really have much of a response beyond this.
- sudodevnull 1y agoWe didn't remove the features, if you want to use the old ones they're still there in the repo. We just didn't want to support the old way of doing them when we actively tell people not to use them. If you're going to be a support burden going forward we want you to have skin in the game if not cool do it yourself no one's going to get mad at you
- chownie 1y agoDeprecating a feature and replacing it with a paywalled version is imo a distinction without a difference. You're of course free to do it, just as I'm free continue to use other products which do not do this.
- ianbutler 1y agoIn any hypothetical open source project I make from now on where I am the owner and sole director I'll just get rid of the features entirely if they cause an undue support burden (which the datastar dev has gone up and down both threads saying this is what happened) to avoid specifically your comment. Seems to fit in with your world view better and then I can just leave those people high and dry with much less concern! You're not owed these people's time.
- chownie 1y agoDon't worry, I also won't use your product :) If the point is good stewardship of the product, deleting features that users clearly need only to replace with a for-pay version stinks possibly only slightly less than deprecating features users clearly need and then replacing with nothing. Both of these things mean your product sucks.
- ianbutler 1y agoThat's fine, less entitled people is healthy for a projects ecosystem. For a proper way this would work, you the user would contribute your time for those features so you don't overburden the maintainer, but people like you won't and so this is where we're at. I'd rather avoid burnout (which will kill a project entirely) and lose a few folks like you.
- chownie 1y ago> For a proper way this would work, you the user would contribute your time for those features so you don't overburden the maintainer, but people like you won't and so this is where we're at. Sure, if you're up front and honest from the beginning then some users will do that, the majority are likely to go for other offerings which don't suffer this problem. Vanishingly few users are going to be cool with features disappearing and then reappearing later on with a price tag attached, which is the scenario we're talking about. In reality, 99.9% of the users are going to be using whatever free thing is available and your project will live for just about as long as you personally care about it. Rightly or wrongly, the maintainer's work/life balance isn't on the forefront of your mind when you're looking at npm packages, no amount of grandstanding will change that.