One must ask themselves why a REST testing tool has venture capital and needs to be closed source (despite their website proudly claiming "Open source"). I'll pass on installing this onto my computer.
HTTPie CLI has been open-source for a decade. HTTPie Desktop has yet to be open-sourced. We first want to get the product, architecture, and codebase somewhat stable. As the README says, we use the GitHub repo to host releases and issues.
At a minimum you should remove the banner at the bottom of the page claiming it's open source.
We appreciate your interest, but we never gave an ETA. I do regret having made the intention public, though.
> At a minimum you should remove the banner at the bottom of the page claiming it's open source.
That’s a good point. As I wrote in another comment below: I’ve now updated the website template not to show the image with the slogan on this page. Thanks for the feedback.
(For reference, I work as a software engineer and am also the author of a popular open source project which I give away for free and have put thousands of hours into.)
I don't think the original comment meant that it is sketchy to make a living out of software. I think the issue is the posturing as open source, having a github repo with no code just to attract devs and look open source-y and even sharing it on HackerNews right after the issues with closed source by Postman too. Feels like an "open source alternative", but not really, hence the sketchy accusation.
But this is just how I read it.
As the first paragraph in the README says, we use the GitHub repo to host releases and issues.
Having it on GitHub under the same organization as our other projects that already are open-source is convenient for both us and our users — https://github.com/httpie.
> and even sharing it on HackerNews right after the issues with closed source by Postman too. Feels like an "open source alternative", but not really, hence the sketchy accusation.
The person who shared it is not related to HTTPie.
Given the quality of the discourse here, I almost wish they did not! ;-)
It's an HTTP client. The client codebase is here:
Why everyone is getting their knickers in a massive twist because they have an Electron wrapper that they haven't open sourced is mystifying.
I haven't studied the codebase but I highly doubt they are going to have a separate client implementation for the Electron product vs the CLI! They're just trying to create a nice Electron client, in addition to their well-known CLI, and start a business around it aren't they?
So is email. The simplicity of a protocol has nothing to do with the complexity of the workflow that produces it.
> why not just write that directly in a literate format you can checkin to a repo?
Because nothing I work on in Postman is something I need to check in to a repo. I need to test HTTP requests, and I've never worked with a code base that had raw HTTP requests in it.
> They're still alternatives, just not in the style you're used to.
The "style" is different enough that entire use cases become impossible.
Let's say I want to copy HTTP response headers out of a log in JSON format. In Postman, I can paste JSON (and various other key-value formats) into the headers field, and it automatically parses it for me.
There are a hundred little conveniences like that that require a good GUI.
disclaimer: I'm the maintainer and my day job is fine-tuning llm
p.s. I will always keep insomnium 100% local & FOSS
With that said, Codeberg has a strict policy of hosting software licensed under an OSI or FSF approved license.[1] They will actually take down repositories that do not follow this guideline.
[1] https://docs.codeberg.org/getting-started/faq/#can-i-host-so...
(It’s not open-source yet as we first want to get the product, architecture, and codebase somewhat stable.)
Can you be more clear? Is the Desktop app going to be open-source in the future? If so, what license?
Do you intend to monetize this product? If so, how?
As a side note: I find it strange that you feel the product is not stable enough to share the code, but apparently stable enough to share the product itself.
>> not open-source yet
> Can you be more clear? Is the Desktop app going to be open-source in the future? If so, what license?
Yes, but have no ETA or license choice yet.
> Do you intend to monetize this product? If so, how?
Yes. We strongly believe in a freemium where both free and premium users are happy. We’ll primarily monetize collaboration and enterprise features without cannibalizing free users. In this sense, we’re inspired by companies like GitHub or Figma. And in our case, free also includes users without an account.
> As a side note: I find it strange that you feel the product is not stable enough to share the code, but apparently stable enough to share the product itself.
Running an open-source project well is not easy and takes resources. Building a great product is hard on its own. Our primary goal is to design and build the best API product possible, so we direct all our energy there for now.
This might be an oversight just need to fix their marketing page
Not doubting. I'm compiling a table with Postman alternatives, VC-backed is on column and I like to add sources where possible.
I'm probably missing something, but it seems insane they need so much money to make (yet another) API testing client.
And I'm guessing it means the company is valued at x billion dollars
If they are based in America, they would be calculating at least, say $200k per year per employee, since they need to pay healthcare etc. So multiply that by the number of employees you want in your business, then add all the other costs, and extend over the period you want the funding to cover.
Wow, I'm glad we've got you here to point out that the startup model doesn't work!
I don't understand why this thread on HTTPie has led to so much low quality teenagerish anti-commercial rhetoric; this is far below normal HN standards.
You asked why there is so much criticism to them taking so much investor money and I tried to explain. I don't understand why you react snarky.
I would also argue many comments are not anti-commercial but anti greed.
Is it greedy to accept large amounts of money that an investor offers you? It had never occurred to me to think of it that way. I think of it as being fortunate to be in a position where someone says "I'll give you lots of funding to start a software company". That sounds to me like an exciting opportunity that's definitely worth taking, but apparently you think it's greed?
But in this case there was a mildly successful company that didn't seem to need that much money to fulfill their business plan. That is the direction I was aiming at. So they took more than they needed (greed) but didn't get it for free, but with expectations from investors that might not align with the original companies goals.
My critique went into the direction of taking more money than your plan needs.