4 ms·

I predict it'll be the best and then the 'worst' thing: they'll go hard on monetisation. Just look at this post: 1839 points and 1048 comments! That is insane.

• lijok 1y ago
  They’ve been very transparent about their monetization strategy and it does not impact uv’s foss model
  • hexbin010 1y ago
    That's just marketing. Only time will tell. I'll be very happy to be wrong
    • lijok 1y ago
      The time has come. They’re in closed beta with pyx, their first product they’re charging for.
      • maleldil 1y ago
        That assumes that pyx (or whatever else they come up with) will be enough to sustain the company.
        • lijok 1y ago
          Yes, as with every single OSS project in existence. If I write some OSS tool that becomes popular, and lose my job, I might just start monetizing it.
  • motbus3 1y ago
    Until they change their minds. If they were serious about it, it would be part of PyCQA
    • lijok 1y ago
      The same PyCQA that they worked hard to do a significantly better job than?
      • gaindustries 1y ago
        [dead]
• bgwalter 1y ago
  It has always been like this. The only way to get glory and money in the Python space [1] is to set up a new package manager or package repository or both. Active State, Enthought, Anaconda, now Astral. [1] Discounting pure SaaS companies that just use Python but offer no tools.
  • dundercoder 1y ago
    Active state, that’s a name I’ve not heard in a long time. A long time.
    • dotancohen 1y ago
      So you know him then?
  • oblio 1y ago
    Heh, Sonatype - Maven - Nexus, Gradle Inc - Gradle (both Java).
• limagnolia 1y ago
  It is open source. If they enshitify UV with monetization, it will be forked.
  • pjmlp 1y ago
    Most forks eventually die.
    • passivegains 1y ago
      I'm not sure immortality is a good standard to hold forks to. the original project won't last forever either.
      • pjmlp 1y ago
        There is yet one to exist that dies before its forks.
        • Boxxed 1y ago
          Hudson died well before its fork (Jenkins)
          • pjmlp 1y ago
            Bad example, because the fork is from Hudson authors leaving Oracle, not from a bunch of people angry at the authors.
            • Boxxed 1y ago
              Ah yes, of course, no true fork has outlived its upstream project, how silly of me.
              • pjmlp 1y ago
                Most !== All
• neves 1y ago
  The Python Software Foundation includes highly competent contributors. One reason I adopted uv is confidence in the Python community’s engineering decision to prevent the take over of the platform. Progress is already underway. PEP 751 proposes a standardized format for lock files: https://peps.python.org/pep-0751/ https://peps.python.org/pep-0751/ This helps to reduce tool-specific lock-in. uv is open source, so forking remains viable. Build metadata is committed, and conversion to other tools is feasible if needed. However, we must all remain vigilant against the risk of lock-in.
  • rnhGatt 1y ago
    Many competent contributors have left or were silenced by the politicians. PyPI had multiple severe vulnerabilities. pip has no adequate story for the scientific ecosystem. Building from source via pip usually fails, unlike around 2010 when it usually worked. The only thing that prevents lock-in is the religious zeal of most Python users to use anything presented by the PSF high priests, not technical merit. The reason uv exists is the utter incompetence of PyPA.