4 ms·

I'll certainly defend d*'s right to do what they did, but the wisdom of doing so is going to come into question as soon as they reject a PR because it contains

I'll certainly defend d*'s right to do what they did, but the wisdom of doing so is going to come into question as soon as they reject a PR because it contains a feature that's in Pro. I don't think people who are concerned about that deserve to be called "freeloaders", but I guess a fork is a way out of such acidic rhetoric too.

madeofpalk 1y ago
Wait - what's wrong with that? It's their project, they can merge whatever PRs they want!
nchmy 1y ago
D* has a core, which is open and will be set in stone soon when v1 is released, with the expectation that it'll barely, if ever, change again. The rest is plugins, which anyone can write or modify. There's no need for the plugins to get merged upstream - just use them in your project, and share them publicly if you want. You could even do the same with the pre-pro versions of the pro plugins - just make the (likely minor) modifications to make them compatible with the current datastar core. They're also going to be releasing a formal public plugin api in the next release. Presumably it'll be even easier to do all of this then.
- chuckadams 1y ago
  Sounds like they put some real thought into it then, which is good news. I was picturing two different core distributions, which would create the sort of conflict I was imagining, but as long as core does stay maintained, it seems likely that fear will stay imaginary.
  - nchmy 1y ago
    one might say they've put far too much thought into it all. Its very impressive
  - sudodevnull 1y ago
    FUD is all hackernews runs on apparently
adlpz 1y ago
As I answered somewhere else, the over-the-top freeloader term I think is justified because OP clearly expects not only to benefit from the work already available, freely, but also to be entitled, for free, to any work and improvement that comes in the future. This is nonsensical. Someone did something for free. Fantastic. They used it, successfully, for a production system that enables scheduling for their job. Nobody took that away from them. They didn't force them to rebuild their tool. The code is even there, in the git history, available for them. If OP doesn't like what the devs decided to do with the project, just move on or fork and pay someone to help you fix any outstanding bugs or missing features.
- ksec 1y ago
  There is a generation divide in open source ideology over the past 10 - 20 years. The modern one is what op and lots of younger generation agree upon. It should always be open source and continue to be supported by the community. The old folks are basically take it or leave it. Fork it into my own while taking the maintenance burden too.

madeofpalk 1y ago

Wait - what's wrong with that? It's their project, they can merge whatever PRs they want!

nchmy 1y ago

D* has a core, which is open and will be set in stone soon when v1 is released, with the expectation that it'll barely, if ever, change again. The rest is plugins, which anyone can write or modify. There's no need for the plugins to get merged upstream - just use them in your project, and share them publicly if you want. You could even do the same with the pre-pro versions of the pro plugins - just make the (likely minor) modifications to make them compatible with the current datastar core. They're also going to be releasing a formal public plugin api in the next release. Presumably it'll be even easier to do all of this then.

chuckadams 1y ago
Sounds like they put some real thought into it then, which is good news. I was picturing two different core distributions, which would create the sort of conflict I was imagining, but as long as core does stay maintained, it seems likely that fear will stay imaginary.
- nchmy 1y ago
  one might say they've put far too much thought into it all. Its very impressive
- sudodevnull 1y ago
  FUD is all hackernews runs on apparently

adlpz 1y ago

As I answered somewhere else, the over-the-top freeloader term I think is justified because OP clearly expects not only to benefit from the work already available, freely, but also to be entitled, for free, to any work and improvement that comes in the future. This is nonsensical. Someone did something for free. Fantastic. They used it, successfully, for a production system that enables scheduling for their job. Nobody took that away from them. They didn't force them to rebuild their tool. The code is even there, in the git history, available for them. If OP doesn't like what the devs decided to do with the project, just move on or fork and pay someone to help you fix any outstanding bugs or missing features.

ksec 1y ago
There is a generation divide in open source ideology over the past 10 - 20 years. The modern one is what op and lots of younger generation agree upon. It should always be open source and continue to be supported by the community. The old folks are basically take it or leave it. Fork it into my own while taking the maintenance burden too.