4 ms·

Yes, the forkers are doing themselves a disservice. Joyent is accused of not communicating with the community, and yet the forkers respond by also not communic

Yes, the forkers are doing themselves a disservice. Joyent is accused of not communicating with the community, and yet the forkers respond by also not communicating with the community [EDIT: they have refused multiple opportunities to comment, Joyent is publicly appearing to make a consolation effort]. If Node wants to be taken seriously by a broader range of companies, it should be stable. There are forkers on the Joyent Node advisory board. As an open-source project, transparency will go a long way to gain community support from either side. So far, Joyent is winning the communication battle. Recent article on the subject: http://readwrite.com/2014/11/13/node-js-joyent-possible-fork-schism http://readwrite.com/2014/11/13/node-js-joyent-possible-fork... Arguably, this has been stewing for a while: http://venturebeat.com/2013/09/18/can-this-startup-steal-node-from-joyent-vcs-bet-8m-on-it/ http://venturebeat.com/2013/09/18/can-this-startup-steal-nod... I am a huge node proponent, and don't encounter problems from outside the project. Joyent's articles and purpose have always been more clear to me than StrongLoop, which is why I use the services of the former. However I have a hard time believing these articles and rumors are the whole story, hopefully someone can chime in with more specific information.

drderidder 12y ago
This has been brewing for a year and a lot of people in the community felt it was inevitable [1]. Plenty of early node people were never keen on Joyent's grab in the first place. The idea that the majority of core contribs are being uncommunicative is not really borne out by the growing community around node-forward and how open it actually is. They've set up live chat, a mentors list, help pages, given access to anybody who asks to the fork and are actively seeking input on new features like better numerical comp libs. It probably seems less communicative than it really is only because they want to wait till the concept is past nascent stage to announce anything. Totally not surprised that people have gotten fed up with Joyent and that forks are happening. 1 https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/nodejs/mqSf47HhmyY
- scljstcwombat 12y ago
  > actively seeking input on new features like better numerical comp libs That is one of the most comedic issues on github. Worth a read, but tl;dr: "all we need is to compile these ancient libraries! It should be easy, they are ancient and I am async!" ... "I failed to compile these ancient libraries." https://github.com/node-forward/discussions/issues/1 https://github.com/node-forward/discussions/issues/1
- doublerebel 12y ago
  There is anything but a consensus at that link, many of the commenters at that link believe a fork and/or change of stewardship is a bad choice. This is an open-source project, and Joyent's repo has always been open. Node-forward and io.js's silence and secrecy can only invite suspicion in this situation. If contributors don't like Joyent's direction, kill them with kindness. Overwhelm node with useful PRs that have a ton of community support behind them. Playing these games IMHO is only bad for the community and for Node's image. Joyent seems to understand this. I am trying to form an opinion to support Node's positive evolution and I shouldn't have to petition for access to contribute. That is exactly the excuse the forkers are using to justify their fork, and they're guilty of the same.
- dmpk2k 12y ago
  Plenty of early node people were never keen on Joyent's grab in the first place. Joyent funded Ryan Dahl, Isaac Schlueter and other committers since 2009 or 2010, before the majority of programmers had heard of node.js. And node.js is firmly under an MIT license. Were the developers supposed to live off kudos and instant noodles? If that's a grab, I wish more businesses would do that. We should be encouraging more investment by companies in open source, so complaining about Joyent stepping up to the plate and giving significant financial help to node.js during the early phase is a bit much.

drderidder 12y ago

This has been brewing for a year and a lot of people in the community felt it was inevitable [1]. Plenty of early node people were never keen on Joyent's grab in the first place. The idea that the majority of core contribs are being uncommunicative is not really borne out by the growing community around node-forward and how open it actually is. They've set up live chat, a mentors list, help pages, given access to anybody who asks to the fork and are actively seeking input on new features like better numerical comp libs. It probably seems less communicative than it really is only because they want to wait till the concept is past nascent stage to announce anything. Totally not surprised that people have gotten fed up with Joyent and that forks are happening. 1 https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/nodejs/mqSf47HhmyY

scljstcwombat 12y ago
> actively seeking input on new features like better numerical comp libs That is one of the most comedic issues on github. Worth a read, but tl;dr: "all we need is to compile these ancient libraries! It should be easy, they are ancient and I am async!" ... "I failed to compile these ancient libraries." https://github.com/node-forward/discussions/issues/1 https://github.com/node-forward/discussions/issues/1
doublerebel 12y ago
There is anything but a consensus at that link, many of the commenters at that link believe a fork and/or change of stewardship is a bad choice. This is an open-source project, and Joyent's repo has always been open. Node-forward and io.js's silence and secrecy can only invite suspicion in this situation. If contributors don't like Joyent's direction, kill them with kindness. Overwhelm node with useful PRs that have a ton of community support behind them. Playing these games IMHO is only bad for the community and for Node's image. Joyent seems to understand this. I am trying to form an opinion to support Node's positive evolution and I shouldn't have to petition for access to contribute. That is exactly the excuse the forkers are using to justify their fork, and they're guilty of the same.
dmpk2k 12y ago
Plenty of early node people were never keen on Joyent's grab in the first place. Joyent funded Ryan Dahl, Isaac Schlueter and other committers since 2009 or 2010, before the majority of programmers had heard of node.js. And node.js is firmly under an MIT license. Were the developers supposed to live off kudos and instant noodles? If that's a grab, I wish more businesses would do that. We should be encouraging more investment by companies in open source, so complaining about Joyent stepping up to the plate and giving significant financial help to node.js during the early phase is a bit much.