3 ms·

> For v1, we moved a handful of convenience plugins into Datastar Pro. and > Nothing you can build was taken from you; we set a support boundary If it was av

> For v1, we moved a handful of convenience plugins into Datastar Pro. and > Nothing you can build was taken from you; we set a support boundary If it was available on core, it was supported by them. If they moved it to Pro, isn't still supported by them? Not sure what the 'support boundary' is. If they didn't want to provide official support for it, wasn't 'core' the better solution for them anyway? Wouldn't pay require them to officially support it? ---- The ability to build is separate from the convenience of prebuilt. It is paywalling things. This is like saying, 'you can send electrical pulses to your computer, no need for an OS or tooling'. If everything is achievable through the same api, then the plugins wouldn't do anything. If they simplify things, then do they do add something, convenience. This is what plugins do, which they say aren't needed? But if they're not needed, what's Pro for? Yes, it's a 501c3... it's still commercial since they're selling... If it's stable, no v2, plugins aren't needed, it's a 501c3, there's no shares, equity... what's the point of Pro? "The goal is to fund the work and draw a clear support boundary," What are they funding? By adding a Pro subscription, what's the incentive to work on core? --- As an outsider it just looks as a way to justify Pro. But it's not a technical explanation or explains the maintenance policy.

infamia 1y ago
The data attributes they moved to Pro was mostly a result of watching folks use Datastar and seeing the anti-patterns develop. Those anti-patterns have been moved to Pro. > If it's stable, no v2, plugins aren't needed, it's a 501c3, there's no shares, equity... what's the point of Pro? "The goal is to fund the work and draw a clear support boundary," What are they funding? I assume it is because charitable organizations need accountants and other things (along with all the other stuff like web hosting and the like).
- sudodevnull 1y ago
  Ironically Non-profits have to show profits. We don't particularly want devs money as much as Teams/Enterprise to pay for tooling. Inspector make life easier and more stuff (like Stellar is in route).
- rovr138 1y ago
  If they make less than $50,000 USD, they need to file the 990-N postcard, online. It's less than 10 fields? Things like name, ein, fiscal start, end, etc. If they make more than $50k, they can fill the EZ form. Sure, hire an accountant if you want. Most is how they earned the money, assets, expenses, where they spent the money. They need to declare officers too. If they earn I think it's $200k, then they need to fill the IRS 990 form. Sure, get an accountant. There's another requirement thrown in the above if they have more than X in assets... The datasets of IRS 990's are available online.
crote 1y ago
I completely agree. The "nothing was lost because you can still build it yourself" argument could just as well be used to make the entire thing proprietary. You still have your Turing Machine, so you didn't lose anything! I don't have a big problem with the "paid bonus features" business model in general, but when you're removing features from the open-source version, at least be honest about it. And it's open source: if it breaks you get to keep both pieces, so where's the support burden supposed to come from?
- rovr138 1y ago
  Same. I have no problem with paid features. I have no problem with them making money. I have no problem with them monetizing it this way. I have no problem with the 501c3. I think that moving things from free to paid is them forcing the hand of users to pay, which is sweeping the rug under them. This is more on _how they did it_, more than the fact that it's paid. I just don't like how they did it and it's not a good argument to justify it.
naasking 1y ago
> By adding a Pro subscription, what's the incentive to work on core? The article literally says that they consider core complete after numerous rewrites and optimizations. The whole point of a plugin architecture is that extensions don't have to touch core source code, so development on Datastar, open or closed source, is all about the community of plugins.
- rovr138 1y ago
  I agree. But by their own admission, plugins are not needed. > _even if we don’t think you need them._ So, to them, which is it?
  - naasking 1y ago
    "You don't need plugins to do useful work with Datastar", and "You don't need these plugins for most work" are both perfectly reasonable interpretations.

infamia 1y ago

The data attributes they moved to Pro was mostly a result of watching folks use Datastar and seeing the anti-patterns develop. Those anti-patterns have been moved to Pro. > If it's stable, no v2, plugins aren't needed, it's a 501c3, there's no shares, equity... what's the point of Pro? "The goal is to fund the work and draw a clear support boundary," What are they funding? I assume it is because charitable organizations need accountants and other things (along with all the other stuff like web hosting and the like).

sudodevnull 1y ago
Ironically Non-profits have to show profits. We don't particularly want devs money as much as Teams/Enterprise to pay for tooling. Inspector make life easier and more stuff (like Stellar is in route).
rovr138 1y ago
If they make less than $50,000 USD, they need to file the 990-N postcard, online. It's less than 10 fields? Things like name, ein, fiscal start, end, etc. If they make more than $50k, they can fill the EZ form. Sure, hire an accountant if you want. Most is how they earned the money, assets, expenses, where they spent the money. They need to declare officers too. If they earn I think it's $200k, then they need to fill the IRS 990 form. Sure, get an accountant. There's another requirement thrown in the above if they have more than X in assets... The datasets of IRS 990's are available online.

crote 1y ago

I completely agree. The "nothing was lost because you can still build it yourself" argument could just as well be used to make the entire thing proprietary. You still have your Turing Machine, so you didn't lose anything! I don't have a big problem with the "paid bonus features" business model in general, but when you're removing features from the open-source version, at least be honest about it. And it's open source: if it breaks you get to keep both pieces, so where's the support burden supposed to come from?

rovr138 1y ago
Same. I have no problem with paid features. I have no problem with them making money. I have no problem with them monetizing it this way. I have no problem with the 501c3. I think that moving things from free to paid is them forcing the hand of users to pay, which is sweeping the rug under them. This is more on _how they did it_, more than the fact that it's paid. I just don't like how they did it and it's not a good argument to justify it.

naasking 1y ago

> By adding a Pro subscription, what's the incentive to work on core? The article literally says that they consider core complete after numerous rewrites and optimizations. The whole point of a plugin architecture is that extensions don't have to touch core source code, so development on Datastar, open or closed source, is all about the community of plugins.

rovr138 1y ago
I agree. But by their own admission, plugins are not needed. > _even if we don’t think you need them._ So, to them, which is it?
- naasking 1y ago
  "You don't need plugins to do useful work with Datastar", and "You don't need these plugins for most work" are both perfectly reasonable interpretations.