kasajian

On the bright side, I now know about your product. Had never heard of it prior to this.

Nah, you're just twisting things around. We are criticizing and calling out the rationale he's giving. Not even interested if he hears it. It's message to the public of the maintainers behavior. Not to him. He's got a right to do what he wants.

The critique is not about the demands for his time as a maintainer, which is what he is addressing, that no one here is complaining about. In fact, post folks have made it clear that they have no issue with it.

That b.s. It has to do with the fact that the project is not making it clear that it's not interested in PRs.

Don't have Issues. Don't have PRs. Just push your code to github. Add to the README that this is a mirror of the actual development branch that follows an internal process. The Github repo is only used as a way to publish the latest snapshot of the source.

The "going closed source" because of harassment is just an knee-jerk punitive reactionary response. It's akin to taking your ball and going home.

He has a right to do anything he wants with hit source, but Open Source is nothing more than a license. We had GPL 2 before there was github. All you had to do is either deliver the source with your software, or make the source available upon request, even if it's by snail-mail.

My only exception to this article is the section, "People underestimate what open source costs from the maintainer side. It’s not just writing code. It’s issues, pull requests, discussions, people demanding things from you for free. I got spammed like crazy. And now with AI, spamming a maintainer is so easy: low effort issues, generated pull requests, and every single one of them takes a bit of your time and energy"

This is all self-inflicted. Don't take Issues. Don't take PRs. Make the repo read-only to everyone but you. There's zero effort, unless you're planning on keeping all the source on your computer and never push it anywhere. Well, I guess, in that case you're saving yourself from doing a push.

So if you don't want to do all that stuff, that's fine. You don't have to. But don't pretend the only alternative is to close the source.

Someone explain to me why this product is unique. If Mozilla never came out with it, does that mean businesses are stuck with using cloud-based AI? C'mon. There's a lot of products that already offer local-AI. What am I missing?

Content should be in a github org.

I'll check back every few years to see if either this project, Wine or ReactOS can run Visual Studio 2026 (or 2022) and .NET Framework 4.

Not talking about the cross-platform versions of .NET and VS-Code. I'm specifically talking about the Windows-specific software I mentioned above.

I don't see this happening, despite the fact that by now, these types of porting efforts were supposed to be trivial because of AI. Yeah, I'll wait.

Yes, but you are not giving people anyway to close their account, nor make it obvious to unsubscribe. That's not very good.

The article wasn't proof-read. Too many basic English errors are too distracting and makes it hard to read.

I don't agree. I don't think of Oracle at all when I think of JavaScript. And I also don't care whether they own the trademark.

There's no hypocrisy.