Maintaining your own fork is a ton of work. Even if it's just routinely rebasing on upstream and maintaining your own upgrade infrastructure and doing releases, that's far from trivial.
The open source community really needs to stop with the "just fork it" mindset.
> Maintaining your own fork is a ton of work. Even if it's just routinely rebasing on upstream and maintaining your own upgrade infrastructure and doing releases, that's far from trivial.
Well I did it for Mattermost and for some other software as well. Sure, its some work, but it's not "a ton" of work and may not be "trivial" but it is also not "far" from trivial.
Do it like Linux maintainers maintain a ton of patched RPM's, deb's, etc. Just keep a patch in GIT. For every release of Mattermost you do a GIT clone, apply your patch and build it. Most of the time the patch will just apply cleanly. Sometimes you need to make a few adjustments, you make them and put them in GIT. There is no extensive release management or anything. You just build a patched version for every released version.
I use MM for about a year. Forking it would be a major undertaking as the number of vulnerabilities for which you would need to backport is quite high like 5 a month?). Last time they removed features from free (group calls in v10) there was a lot of grumbling but thats it.
I don't think the implication is that anyone as an individual would fork it.
I think the implication is that some other interested org could very easily step in and assume the role that the Mattermost org was in, and everyone would very eagerly switch and leave Mattermost itself speaking to an empty room.
>The open source community really needs to stop with the "just fork it" mindset.
The open source community really needs to stop with the "just do everything i want for free" mindset.
I mean, open source does not mean you're entitled to free support, and free in free software is not about money. I think people depend too much on those projects and then act entitled.
Of course the open source bait and switch done by companies is a shitty behavior worth calling out, but the companies exist to earn money and at this point this can be expected.
I don't think I've expressed a "just do everything I want for free" mindset. In fact, I'm pushing against the idea that someone should just fork Mattermost and maintain that fork for free.
I do think this development represents a bait and switch though.
From my observation Mattermost is not a software you buy "support" for. It either works and is self-manageable or you use something else. I guess Mattermost (as in the company) saw that too and now uses shitty practices to coerece people into buying it.
glancing through the code, it doesn't seem like it be that hard to remove limitations such as this. PostHistoryLimit/postHistoryLimit interpreted from License Limits. a little poke here and there and I'd guess the limitations would disappear.
The time and energy that it takes to do it and build it, and then make it easy for current users to move their automatic updates to the fork, then maintaining it etc.
Nothing. Open Source is dying. The model to finance open source work (well-off suburban american dads or as a portfolio show off) no longer apply. The old generation that believed in this model is retiring and for the new generation it pays better to "network", leet code, or spam your resume to thousands of employers.
Now couple that with the fact that supply-chain control is profitable (legally or illegally); I think the next 5-10 years will be interesting.
AGPL and Apache are both open source licenses. So I’m not getting what the confusion would be as an end user, who won’t be modifying the software or packaging it for sale.
On mobile this is a strong contender for the worst UX I've ever seen. The whole page moves, so you have to continously scroll back up after placing something.
If when in pick mode you would only scroll the list, I would be able to organize it much faster.
> On mobile this is a strong contender for the worst UX I've ever seen.
Pretty hyperbolic. First of all, this is a human and their work you’re talking about. A little respect goes a long way. Secondly, if this is the worst UX you’ve ever seen on mobile, I have to assume you’ve only been using the internet for the past week or so. This experience worked great for me on mobile Safari with no instructions required. You can’t say that for a lot of mobile UX including, I might add, Safari itself.
It's even worse on desktop. You have to scroll the entire screen (with mousewheel or arrow keys) to move the selection. I spent 30 seconds thinking it was bugged because the intuitive solution would be to click once, then simply click where you want to place it, but the "place" button only showed up on the one you already "picked". Fine idea, worst conceivable execution of UX I have ever seen.
Perhaps a combination of the two? Maybe standard drag-and-drop works as usual, but if you drag the item to some deadzone (like the side of the screen?), it will stick and you're free to scroll to where you want to put it.
Surely you're being hyperbolic. I've seen some atrocious UX before. Maybe what you mean is it's a good idea but the scrolling part should be list-based instead of page-based.
No because what if the list is half cut off by the page but you want to go to the bottom? If it doesn’t scroll the page it’s even worse. If it does scroll the page it’s not great. It’s just bad design. Also not intuitive. I didn’t read the directions and it took me a couple seconds to get what was going on.
They get fantastic exposure from the other onboard cameras though! The one by the air intake is the best view for spectating and probably one of the best for advertisers too.
Yeah, they were down last week too. It's hard to run an open git forge on a small volunteer team, the workload is read and write heavy with endless "customers" (or bots).
To be honest. Never really thought about it fully. I don't know monetization plan as well. I just wanted to create better private version of diff checker and merge. Will think through and update here.
> The people I know who run all do it for the exercise, not because they like the running.
That sounds like torture. Why would you voluntarily practice a form of exercise that you actively dislike, when there are basically infinite options to get the same benefits in different ways?
Believe it or not, many people who stick with running do it because they enjoy it.
I became a runner by elimination: I needed to do something for "cardiac hygiene". Swimming has a setup cost (you need to go to a pool). Cycling takes too long, so running it became. I run 40-50km/week, and honestly I do not like it. Anyway, I do enjoy the mental health side effects too.
I don't really like and never liked running; I mean, I don't like it as I like skateboarding, which makes me all butterfly hyped just thinking about riding a board and doing even the dumbest simplest tricks.
But I do like the effects of running, which I don't seem to be able to emulate any other way. I can't say it's torture - it should never be nor feel like torture otherwise you're doing it wrong - but it was certainly a learned taste of sorts.
It's more like this human body has been shaped to do this by aeons of evolution, and over time it feels immensely rewarding after the fact when done properly for a given fitness level.
You don't have to like running, your body does already (but might have forgotten)
>Why would you voluntarily practice a form of exercise that you actively dislike, when there are basically infinite options to get the same benefits in different ways?
If there are other, more enjoyable, ways to get a similarly cardo-intensive workout that are equally convenient I'd love to hear them.
I like cycling. But in practice it is difficult to get my heart rate as high in a sustained way - at least, where I live. A similar level of workout takes a lot longer.
So yeah, hit me with some of these infinite possibilities please.
reply