←back to thread

301 points lukeio | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.215s | source
Show context
pedrozieg ◴[] No.46233265[source]
There’s something refreshing about explicitly saying “this editor exists to delight me, and that’s enough”. The default script now is that every side project should either be open-sourced or turned into a SaaS, even if that pressure is exactly what kills the weirdness that made it interesting in the first place.

Some of the best tools I’ve used felt like they started as someone’s private playground that only later got hardened into “serious” software. Letting yourself park Boo, go build a language, and come back when it’s fun again is probably how we get more Rio/Boo-style experiments instead of yet another VS Code skin with a growth deck attached.

replies(3): >>46234633 #>>46236932 #>>46237537 #
mghackerlady ◴[] No.46234633[source]
I'm very much for people open-sourcing their projects in terms of releasing the source code. Just don't accept patches or whatever, keep the repos closed
replies(1): >>46234840 #
mirashii ◴[] No.46234840[source]
Unfortunately, and I think to great overall harm, GitHub does not let you disable many of the collaboration features. I was just having a discussion today with someone who would be fine open sourcing their code, but is uninterested in any contributions, questions, or community interaction. Since GitHub won’t allow that, their options are to host it somewhere themselves where nobody will see it, or just don’t publish it, which is ultimately what happened.
replies(7): >>46235043 #>>46235315 #>>46235989 #>>46236376 #>>46236456 #>>46236688 #>>46241833 #
1. mghackerlady ◴[] No.46236376[source]
The obvious solution is to just not use github but that's probably not super easy for people without the resources to just throw a tarball on a server somewhere and link people to it