And hey, I'm all for monetization of open source projects: I have no problem with ads on READMEs, etc.
But no, no ads in my terminal when I'm working. Not normal and not OK.
To be frank, I'm not a fan of ad-based models. But it's the example here, and we see the same pattern. Ads in general? Sure. Ads where people will see them, as via popups in Atom or messages to stdout? For shame.
This is not Feross' first attempt to fund his open work. Past approaches haven't failed because Feross wasn't churning out valuable software. He's been doing that the whole time.
The "well conceived" approaches that cost consuming developers literally nothing---no money, no time, no attention---don't repeatably solve funding problems for producing developers.
Edit: There are some good arguments here. I'm on the fence. In most cases I don't look at npm output, in which case the ads would be useless, and when I do need to actually look at npm output they'd be in the way. I can also get behind considering the terminal an "ad-free zone".
If you're suggesting that I'm guilty of that behavior, I should mention that I've never opposed developer using ads on their software's website, or on the software's README. In fact, I've done so myself.
I've also been a big supporter of GoFundMe, Patreon,-and like websites for open source developers.
Believe me, if there were a better way for open source software to be funded, I'd probably spend more time on my open source projects. But not by spamming ads on stdout.
If you're experimenting with funding models, I support your experiments, too. But without looking into specifics, I'm guessing you had the usual experience with README and website ads, sponsorship badges, or the like. I hope it was able to cement some new relationships, and perhaps make you more aware of who's relying on your work. But I wouldn't bet it made you significant money, or significantly changed how much you could or did contribute.
As for stdout versus README and so on, the lines aren't sharp, but I think there's a basic distinction to draw between an advertisement and something more like a credit or acknowledgment. As long as those who go looking for their credit can find it and point it out to others, all seems to be right. Sponsorship in a README fits there, in my view. Ads go where people will notice them, even when they don't go looking. They're frequently invasive. I don't like invasive, but that's where `funding` seems to fit.
There are middle grounds, too. Actors often negotiate for fair billing in relation to other players, for instance. And donors to cultural centers and other physical venues often get their names on plaques or stonework in the foyer. In my mind, all of that just points out how many conventions and expectations we've developed about funding in nearly every field but software.
In my comment above, I was reacting to your mention that Feross' approach seemed ill-conceived. I thought that was one-sided: It's not just about whether user-developers like it. It's also about whether it effectively gets devs paid. It's not well conceived if it doesn't work.
That said, I do not think that this approach by Feross will work at all. Advertisers hate controversy, and given the fairly negative reception this approach has garnered, most of his sponsors (if they're aware) have now likely pulled their support or at least requested that he not put their ads on the terminal.
I've shared your concerns about the ad-based approach from the get-go. I sincerely hope ads of the kind don't become the norm for open developer funding. We know their cost from funding other kinds of open work so well.
I'm interested in this mostly because I see distaste for ads trampling respect for maintainer autonomy, and that is wrong. I've endured the cycle of harassment that follows any credible attempt to fund development work in a new way, seen friends go through it, and saw Feross going into it. It's psychologically impossible for us to experiment our way to approaches that work with peer support.
I'm sorry to hear you (or any open source dev) has experienced harassment because of funding attempts. I disagree with Feross, but I condemn any organized harassment.
I would add that it's fairly predicable that any funding that hinges on innovative uses of ad technology are going to run up against heavy resistance in our communities. There's just not a lot of patience for advertising among techies.
But outside of advertising, I hope developers do experiment with new funding approaches. It's greatly needed.
Software that doesn't require a major ongoing effort can still be in dire need of support, like OpenSSL.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenSSL#Heartbleed
OpenSSL falling over was a wakeup call that we continue to ignore even as NPM, Ruby and other packages are converted to malware because there's nothing in it for the original developer except more work.
So it's good we're talking about this.