The advantage is this guy’s VC backed company gets to sink its teeth into the early stages of WASM platform adoption, helping him line his and his company’s pockets.
WASIX is a hostile fork of an open standard that does care about sandboxing.
WASIX is a hostile fork of an open standard that does care about sandboxing.
I'd love to hear your thoughts, maybe we are missing on some nice business opportunities here!
I find it hard to believe that anything you would spend your company's time on would not push the mission of the company forward. This creates a financial incentive.
We don't plan to monetize WASIX. WASIX is just an enabler to allow any program compile to WebAssembly. If other open-source technology existed and fulfilled what we want to accomplish is more than certain we would not have created WASIX.
In our case, the community was asking to have sockets, threads, forking, subprocesses and more fully working on Wasm. And there was nothing that supported that (or that aimed to support it), so we worked on it.
Now, let me give more insight on what we actually plan to monetize: Wasmer Edge [1]. Wasmer Edge is the alternative to the expensive big-tech providers that allows any person or company to host their websites at a fraction of the cost.
Hope the insight was useful!
Meanwhile, Bytecode Alliance is a registered non-profit with many large corporate backers. They are building out the WASI standard with careful due diligence to learn from and avoid the mistakes we have found in POSIX. BCA has their own financial incentives, and they are aligned differently than yours.
BCA ultimately is moving slower than works for Wasmer. So I guess you were faced with three options: A) wait for BCA, and do nothing B) work with BCA and push it forward C) fork it and do it yourself.
So you chose to fork it and reimplement POSIX with all its warts. I assume because this applies pressure to the community (candidly, a good thing) while letting you make progress immediately.
Where I, and I assume others, have issue with all of this is:
You have chosen a name that has created confusion in an already confusing space.
You have whitewashed it by promoting it as a new open standard, but the controlling entity realllyy is just Wasmer[0].
You have demonstrated through your actions a complete lack of willingness to work with people in the community, preferring to strong-arm with veiled threats[1] or perverting incentives financially[2].
The issue isn't with WASIX, but with you and your actions. I have no confidence in your ability to lead this community forward in a way that has my (our) interests ahead of your company's.
[0]: https://github.com/wasix-org/wasix-governance-meeting-notes/blob/5135516d091d1bc3810677ea2cc755a67e10c669/meeting-notes-27-07-2023.md#meeting-attendees
[1]: https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wit-bindgen/issues/306
[2]: https://github.com/ziglang/zig/issues/17115Is refreshing to see at least some honesty. Haters gonna hate, so I personally don't mind. Have a great day!
Hope you have an awesome day
If you dismiss all criticism of your behaviour in this way, you'll never gain any insight into why so many people find your behaviour so objectionable.
It's not because "haters gonna hate". It's not because you're operating in a competitive and highly visible space, and so of course you're going to receive some "hate", or whatever other dismissive narrative you might have cooked up. Look around you: people in similar positions just don't generate the reaction that you do.
When Wasmer eventually folds, it will be your fault, because you refused to reflect on how your antisocial behaviour destroyed all trust in the brand.
I don't know how to stop that from happening. Maybe a good therapist could help? Heck, your board would probably even be happy to pay for it, given the potential upside for Wasmer.
A hater, for me, is someone that lacks of constructive criticism.
"Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine."
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
Under this interpretation, there would still be a financial incentive, but it would not be underhanded.
The broader context of Syrus' actions within the community (which reflect on Wasmer as its CEO) are what raise concern for me.
I'm incredibly happy to hear that