GitHub is a for profit proprietary platform. Many (certainly not all) public projects on GitHub do happen to be open source (while many others have a proprietary license or even no license whatsoever). Most users and most projects on GitHub don't accept donations. A project can also be developed on GitHub but accept donations trough some system external to GitHub.
Your prediction about money being abandoned is shared by some and not others, which is why a system which isn't designed specifically for those who align with your (or anyone else's) particular ideology need not to be bound to any specific kind of currency. Developers are absolutely free to ask donations in the form of gold and diamonds.
> I do not believe everything will just work out of free contributions, as it never really did.
Except when it does, like in most small open source libraries and even some rather large and widely used ones (see SDL, which only accepted donations for a short time).
> All open source ecosystem are "polluted" by sponsorships by some corporations, are they not?
No, they are not, but it also wasn't my point.
I'm not against projects accepting sponsorships.
I'm against the idea that apt should be loaded with the functionality of monetary transactions in the specific form and trough the specific currency that you wish to support.
Apt needs to do one thing and it can and should remain simple and focused, like most fundamental Linux (or just Debian and derivatives, in this case) utilities are.
You, or anyone else, is free to develop a command-line utility that will deliver donations in any way you wish, trough any currency you wish, which users will have the freedom to either install or not and that those who wish to contribute to programs meant for package installation and management don't need to maintain.
> I will certainly prefer seeing millions of developers and even users zapping to Linux maintainers than seeing Linus Torvalds exiled for a few weeks from his position due to a "recommendation" from a board that suffer pressure from some ignorant mobs.
Linus Torvalds would have had no technical difficulty setting up a donation campaign, if he had chosen to do so. If anything, it would have reached more notoriety, and thus more donations, than any command line utility could ever have provided.
There is no sequence of lines of code that would have changed the situation, because it was a purely social, non-technical matter, one for which Linus himself is arguably in large part at fault.
I too often err towards technosolutionism. It is, indeed, an error.
> PS: you seem to be confusing "cryptocurrencies" as something that's real and is even in the same "space" as Bitcoin. Not sure why, but it is not. I say Bitcoin, I mean Bitcoin, not "crypto" or "cryptocurrencies" or any other made up concept.
Bitcoin is a cryptocurrency.
I know (many) bitcoiners hate the existence of other cryptocurrencies, but so what? That's a purely ideological matter.
Bitcoin isn't inherently better in a technical sense and I see no reason developers of package utilities should cater to bitcoiners any more than to those who support any other open source cryptocurrency.
Of course, all cryptos are made up, as is fiat, and as is Bitcoin.
Aspie96 / Valentino Giudice
npub13mj…8hs2
2024-05-01 19:15:53
in reply to nevent1q…928z
Author Public Key
npub13mjzjryckg9jnxgn3vez73nw5gx82cy0269t2083zjftlxewsjwqny8hs2Published at
2024-05-01 19:15:53Event JSON
{
"id": "a9bf324666975eb84e1792b76fc9df2397965a7fe7042b44e8d5ebf75350cc0f",
"pubkey": "8ee4290c98b20b2999138b322f466ea20c75608f568ab53cf11492bf9b2e849c",
"created_at": 1714583753,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"16878c1e80342b11d425a3566e7a54543b6b21601aec6dc5fabd46fda79f999d",
"wss://nostr.swiss-enigma.ch/",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"1f6fb1f5ac4a4157929178b214c8409d1ba106eb283c59905edabb4e8b475dfb",
"wss://soloco.nl/",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"9e1bd05ed41e7aa2dda1e9b64b8ba48b69bb0fab5a22d442a495b1bf94a9b030",
"",
"mention"
]
],
"content": "GitHub is a for profit proprietary platform. Many (certainly not all) public projects on GitHub do happen to be open source (while many others have a proprietary license or even no license whatsoever). Most users and most projects on GitHub don't accept donations. A project can also be developed on GitHub but accept donations trough some system external to GitHub.\n\nYour prediction about money being abandoned is shared by some and not others, which is why a system which isn't designed specifically for those who align with your (or anyone else's) particular ideology need not to be bound to any specific kind of currency. Developers are absolutely free to ask donations in the form of gold and diamonds.\n\n\u003e I do not believe everything will just work out of free contributions, as it never really did.\n\nExcept when it does, like in most small open source libraries and even some rather large and widely used ones (see SDL, which only accepted donations for a short time).\n\n\u003e All open source ecosystem are \"polluted\" by sponsorships by some corporations, are they not? \n\nNo, they are not, but it also wasn't my point.\nI'm not against projects accepting sponsorships.\nI'm against the idea that apt should be loaded with the functionality of monetary transactions in the specific form and trough the specific currency that you wish to support.\nApt needs to do one thing and it can and should remain simple and focused, like most fundamental Linux (or just Debian and derivatives, in this case) utilities are.\n\nYou, or anyone else, is free to develop a command-line utility that will deliver donations in any way you wish, trough any currency you wish, which users will have the freedom to either install or not and that those who wish to contribute to programs meant for package installation and management don't need to maintain.\n\n\u003e I will certainly prefer seeing millions of developers and even users zapping to Linux maintainers than seeing Linus Torvalds exiled for a few weeks from his position due to a \"recommendation\" from a board that suffer pressure from some ignorant mobs.\n\nLinus Torvalds would have had no technical difficulty setting up a donation campaign, if he had chosen to do so. If anything, it would have reached more notoriety, and thus more donations, than any command line utility could ever have provided.\nThere is no sequence of lines of code that would have changed the situation, because it was a purely social, non-technical matter, one for which Linus himself is arguably in large part at fault.\nI too often err towards technosolutionism. It is, indeed, an error.\n\n\u003e PS: you seem to be confusing \"cryptocurrencies\" as something that's real and is even in the same \"space\" as Bitcoin. Not sure why, but it is not. I say Bitcoin, I mean Bitcoin, not \"crypto\" or \"cryptocurrencies\" or any other made up concept.\n\nBitcoin is a cryptocurrency.\nI know (many) bitcoiners hate the existence of other cryptocurrencies, but so what? That's a purely ideological matter.\nBitcoin isn't inherently better in a technical sense and I see no reason developers of package utilities should cater to bitcoiners any more than to those who support any other open source cryptocurrency.\nOf course, all cryptos are made up, as is fiat, and as is Bitcoin.",
"sig": "b17e2dfb78b8307e885609eb817f7975e984975b1552c420e3dc739640324a5d0119d747892040ee2d7aeb4fee429833fb06993fea150830daa67f83584d5f44"
}