←back to thread

Ask HN: Abandoned/dead projects you think died before their time and why?

358 points ofalkaed | 3 comments | 11 Oct 25 22:16 UTC | HN request time: 0.402s | source

Just curious and who knows, maybe someone will adopt it or develop something new based on its ideas.
Show context
evbogue ◴[11 Oct 25 23:42 UTC] No.45553774[source]▶
Secure-Scuttlebot (the gossiped social network) died circa 2019 or 2024 depending who we ask. It died before it's time for various reasons including:

1. competing visions for how the entire system should work

2. dependence on early/experimental npm libraries

3. devs breaking existing features due to "innovation"

4. a lot of interpersonal drama because it was not just open source but also a social network

the ideas are really good, someone should make the project again and run with it

replies(2): >>45555278 #>>45557062 #
v3ss0n ◴[12 Oct 25 04:39 UTC] No.45555278[source]▶
So much drama there too, but it's designed to attract drmas
replies(1): >>45556642 #
znpy ◴[12 Oct 25 09:02 UTC] No.45556642[source]▶
Drama has killed the technological progress in open source, if you ask me.

Having seen what goes on in the foss world and what goes on in the large faang-size corporate world, no wonder the corporate world is light-years ahead.

replies(1): >>45557411 #
lifty ◴[12 Oct 25 11:35 UTC] No.45557411[source]▶
It is a fundamental constraint of consensus based organizations. You need hierarchy to move faster but that has other disadvantages.
replies(2): >>45557672 #>>45558411 #
1. pessimizer ◴[12 Oct 25 12:18 UTC] No.45557672[source]▶
You don't need hierarchy, but you need some sort of process. "Consensus-based" just means that the loudest and most enduring shouters get their way, and when their way fails spectacularly, they leave in a huff (taking their work with them, badmouthing the project, and likely starting a fork that will pull more people out of the project and confuse potential users who just bail on trying either.)

Those people need to be pushed out early and often. That's what voting is for. You need a supermajority to force an end to discussion, and a majority to make a decision. If you hold up the discussion too long with too slim a minority, the majority can fork your faction out of the group. If the end of debate has been forced, and you can't work with the majority, you should leave yourself.

None of this letting the bullies get their way until everything is a disaster, then splitting up anyway stuff.

replies(2): >>45558117 #>>45560781 #
2. lifty ◴[12 Oct 25 13:30 UTC] No.45558117[source]▶
Hah. Naive take. I especially love this “Those people need to be pushed out early and often. That's what voting is for. You need a supermajority to force an end to discussion, and a majority to make a decision”. We know what needs to be done, but it’s not being done. There’s no consensus. Consensus take time and effort and has a lot of friction. I am part of a coop and I have seen first hand how this goes. And it’s fine, consensus based systems have other advantages, but they move slower that hierarchies.
3. evbogue ◴[12 Oct 25 18:58 UTC] No.45560781[source]▶
I can recall a distinct time period where us ssb devs were passing around the url to "The Tyranny of Structurelessness" via local-first encrypted direct messages. The essay helped us understand what was happening but alas we did not have the tools to stop it happening to us!