So what if they are a VC backed company? If you perform a public service, it's fair to ask the public for money. No one is suggesting this money would go to fund their product.
So what if they are a VC backed company? If you perform a public service, it's fair to ask the public for money. No one is suggesting this money would go to fund their product.
Are there any down side to using deno instead of node now days?
I’m just curious since I’ve been doing deno for a few years now and haven’t missed node beyond cloning other programs.
Who cares if it is JavaScript, ECMAScript, JScript, WhateverScript.
Btw, I donated.
I think our actions speak louder than words.
Yes, I think we shouldn't spread hate speech and everyone has their own biases.
We should all preferably write comments in good faith hoping to learn something new from the others point of view.
So this was a fresh breath of view as in that I feel like this might be the best way of not literally accusing others but at the same time, I feel like that there might be some malicious actors or people not acting in completely good faith that can be indirectly supported by not accusing anyone y'know?
If somebody is bringing their personal VC sucks vendetta (I hate VC but I mean I can stand behind donations if they are transparent etc.) into a discussion, its not entirely good faith and shouldn't be accused at a (somewhat?) rate.
I think that the situation imo is that deno might have some good people but it would still be better if it wasn't deno suing them but rather some other preferably non profit which we could donate to that can sue it instead.
Maybe (node?)
It’s very hard not to chuckle at their choice of website to express those views
Language is malleable and messy, and I find it doesn’t help discourse if you attack the surface reading of a comment. I don’t think OP is “accusing of hate”, I think they’re expressing surprise that such negative sentiments exist to a sensible issue. I agree, as do you it seems.
(And yes, in writing this I asked myself if I’m reacting to your terminology or the intent behind the words. I hope it’s the latter)
They absolutely do get material gains from this, should they succeed.
It'd be a much more legitimate effort if they were just asking people to raise funds for e.g. OpenJS to file suit etc.
This is Oracle we are talking about here. I would cut off my nose to spite Oracle’s face if necessary, they are some of the worst corporate actors in the history of the world. And that is not an exaggeration.
At my company a lot of internal stuff is built with deno. Nothing mission critical but lots of utilities and stuff. But new services are still node, which is basically fine cause all of the complex config is handled already. But all of that complexity still leaks through (whoops can’t use this package because jest can’t find it!)
My life is much better for having switched to vitest
I think that’s an exaggeration. The bar is pretty high (low). The history of the world has The East India Company, The Dutch East India Company, other companies transporting and selling slaves, the various companies that helped carry out The Holocaust, companies directly involved in other genocides, companies directly benefiting from and helping to enforce apartheid, companies pushing opioids, cigarette companies, mining companies etc…
I can talk to even indian kids, Heck we learnt about east india company in 6th grade so like 10-11 years old & they can tell how they really really exploited india with their indigo plantations etc.
I have nothing against britishers but the fact that they kind of never really paid or literally anyone paid for the amount of exploitation that was carried is absolutely wild, and seem to glorify it from what I see is absolutely ridiculous.
Really shows you that the winners of wars write histories as I can't see how people just shrug off this as if eh yeah it happened ,when lets say the same couldn't be compared to lets say the nazi invasion of poland lets say y'know?
Just as how germany has almost learnt from its nazi history / remembering the pains to not do them again, yet from what I know, britain seems to have glorified it.
Literally millions died due to churchill in the bengal famine. Yet he's celebrated as a war hero which I can understand but why do I feel like critizing that millions of people died because of some guy who did wrong is gonna get me downvotes or get resentment, surely we can all agree that churchill was wrong in that context
I really feel as if the world is a large hypocritical machine.
You're wasting your money. I honestly can't believe the number of people here thinking this is anything but a marketing stunt gone too far. We just had a series of major packages being infected with malware, how about putting $200k towards solving that?
Now that, if successful, would bring real immense benefits to all JS users.
Larry Ellison is now the wealthiest person on earth and Oracle is an incredibly litigious rent-seeking law firm masquerading as a tech company.
Good luck and godspeed to anyone with the balls to think that taking them on is a good idea.
As is the existence of Hacker News.
This is the classic "I'd accused your argument of being a fallacy so you're wrong and I'm right fallacy".
Nah, all forms of marketing are bad.
You seem to be saying that Deno reclaiming JavaScript is a bad thing? Why?
Only if we stretch the meaning of term beyond any reasonable bounds.
Google Summer of Code is bad?
Sponsoring the Linux Foundation is bad?
Releasing libraries as Open Source is bad?
Can you put any colour on your comments. They are difficult to understand.
Google Summer of Code is bad. I don't want a trillion dollar monopoly influencing FOSS.
Sponsoring the Linux Foundation can be bad, depending on who does it. Individual people with their donations?
Releasing libraries as Open Source is not bad. But if you release them as a corporate behemoth, who employs the people who work of them, and have them assign copyright claims for their contribitions to your corporate entity, it is worse than a community drive FOSS project.
The Linux foundation would not exist if only individuals donated to it.
Most OSS suffers from a lack of maintainers with time as they rarely are paid and can't make a living from working on it. Company backed OSS doesn't suffer from this. Most popular "community" projects are held together by an assortment of company backed developers.
Many things would not exist if they had to exist properly. Doesn't mean them existing improperly is good.
>Company backed OSS doesn't suffer from this.
No, but suffers from a way worse issue: corporate control.
Which is why community FOSS has been going downhill since circa 2005.
On the contrary: it barely exists today.
FOSS in (roughly speaking) 2005 and before was about a larger vision and a community. Not about mere access to code with specific licenses, or how many trillion dollar companies are depending on it.
>Communities rarely stay the same as they grow larger, but that doesn't mean they are worse. .
I'm not speaking about how communities in change in abstract (in which case doesn't mean necessarily for the worse). I'm speaking about what specific FOSS communities have had happened to them, and which I, and others, do find worse.
Hard to not be cynical about the whole thing, especially when it's a private VC backed company doing this and not say the OpenJS Foundation.
Do not anthropenisize Larry Ellison.
$200k is absolutely not going to come close to covering their legal fees possibly in any scenario but definitely if Oracle tries to drag out the process.
> I can justify spending money on it because it does get Deno's name out there - blog posts posted to http://deno.com, etc - but without support it's pretty likely our legal bills will dwarf whatever that marketing is worth
Just to check on a maybe obvious question, Deno is not trademarked is it?
Also Deno is not claiming that trademarks are bad, they’re claiming that JavaScript is a commonly used term.
There's no hypocrisy.
Why do they need to ask for money from the public if they are VC-backed?
Assuming that the Deno Land Inc. company would benefit from protection from Oracle's trademark
As a member of the public I see no "material gains" from "freeing Javascript from Oracle"
But I may be biased. I do not use Javascript and avoid others' use of it as best I can. I use a different object-oriented, garbage-collected scripting language with C-like syntax that is faster than JS, and faster than Lua (not LuaJIT)
VCs have no public service - it’s an oxymoron.
Hence the “hate” though I think cynicism is the more appropriate term
The reality of finance driven organizations is that no matter what, anything that looks like public good will eventually -if not immediately- be used to capture value on behalf of capital to control
I think the order here is reversed: If you ask the public for money, it's fair to perform a public service. If you just do something you wanted to do anyways, and probably would have done anyways, then it might be viewed as less-than-charitable to ask others for money to help you achieve your goal for yourself (even if other people might benefit somewhat too). Especially when you are far richer (like 100+ times richer) than the people you're asking for money.
As a volunteer organizer for a weekly meetup that helps local entrepreneurs, I and my team have never "asked the public for money". Occasionally we have private companies that like what we do and throw some money our way for coffee. It turns out that passion and effort from volunteers and attendees and other members of the startup community are the critical parts of the meetup, and money is not.
So, that gets me wondering what could be done with those $200k besides pay people to get agreement on one particular word being free-er to use. For example, that would fund coffee and breakfast for the meetup for hundreds of years, perhaps even forever. Or fund plenty of other charitable causes with a direct positive impact on people.
I get the where you're coming from, but it's this exact attitude that ends up with critical infra like OpenSSL being maintained ad hoc by some devoted geek for a pittance, who inevitably can't keep up with critical patches.
As it stands, the money is going to lawyers, who will argue over the right to utter the word "javascript" in a commercial context (rather than, say, "JS"). So zero coding or maintenance.
I agree with you that it'd be better if Deno took your suggestion, and spent the money on a Programming Geek, rather than being distracted from their core mission for trivial, semantic matters. The latter is how we actually end up with critical infra like OpenSSL being maintained ad hoc by some devoted geek for a pittance, who inevitably can't keep up with critical patches.
I mean, I'll be the first to admit that I've argued about a word on the internet before, but at no point did it ever cross my mind that I should spend $200,000 doing so.
How about Deno put up $10,000 to sponsor a renaming contest? In honor of Deno, I propose VajaScript.
err... Vajascript
I don't think it's reversed.
I coach a high school robotics team (volunteer, unpaid) and last season I went into my pocket for an unknown amount of money, but was not less than $5K and probably closer to $7K.
I'm clearly going to do it anyway; is it wrong for me to go out and seek sponsorships for the team so I don't have to dig quite as deep into my own pocket?
I don't think it's even the tiniest bit wrong nor in any way less-than-charitable.
It's for the courts to determine who had what rights, but it's Oracle that is credibly accused of greatly exceeding the rights given them under the law
In my Bizarro world, that is a good thing. Not doing things includes:
* Not monetizing
* Not advertising
* No agendas
* No lawsuits
* No enforcement (other than annoying organizations with C&D letters and then retracting them)
I would like it to remain as it is.The point here is that them not doing those things would be codified. Deno's not trying to take the trademark from them for themselves, they're trying to get the USPTO to agree that JavaScript is a generic term at this point and unable to be trademarked or owned by any one entity.
I'm not sure how that changes any of the bullet points you've got above. It's nice that points 4 and 5 would become completely impossible and not just improbable because the trademark owner currently doesn't care enough to do it.