amazing analysis. for me, either canvas- or carousel-based editor solves the mental issue of having to also load a significant amount of cognitive data all time you deal with very large codebases. (it also automatically require you to have a wide screen sufficient to make use of the tool properly).
only point here is to get used to deal with files on the horizontal, not vertically way of thinking, which is kind of rooted in the way we program first hello world.
it brings me a thought: is it just me who kind of hate the "super-modular-files-with-10-lines" way of doing things today? would love to get back to the way of doing things in the past, like super well-commented files, with hooks here and there to help you navigate, single file for single contexts...
dont you think that something as simple as a CLA (contributor legal agreement) would prevent this type of thing? of course creates noise in the open source contribution funnel, but let's be honest: if you are dedicating yourself to something like contributing to oss, signing a CLA should not be something unrealistic.
That's stretching the traditional definition. Usually CLAs are solely focused on addressing the copyright conditions and intellectual property origin of the contributed changes. Maybe just "contributor agreement" or "contributor contract" would describe that.
What exactly is a CLA going to do to a CCP operative (as appears to be the case with xz)? Do you think the party is going to extradite one of their state sponsored hacking groups because they got caught trying to implement a backdoor?
Or do you think they don’t have the resources to fake an identity?
There was a link in this thread pointing to commit times analysis and it kinda checks out. Adding some cultural and outside world context, I can guess which alphabet this three-four-six-letter agency uses to spell it's name at least.
case closed. you are right... could of course make the things a bit more difficult for someone not backed by a state sponsor. but if that's the case, you are right.
awkward, but heard very recently that open source is not "vc backable, go away". maybe it will change now, after the infrastructure pillars of the modern world ruins in front of those many saas/ai/web3/cloud/whatever investors
Why should VCs back oss infrastructure directly? It doesn't help the VCs and only creates perverse incentives for the oss projects.
The SaaS/cloud/etc. companies themselves should fund the projects they depend on. They actually know what those are and don't have to force their own monetization/growth models onto the projects.
Noooooooo you can’t ask them to pay! You’re supposed to do this for the good of the community only! They ought to be able to take whatever you do and resell at their leisure, after all you made it open source!
And don't forget that GPL is bad, only BSD and MIT are the real free licenses because they let us take the code and sell it on without forcing us to contribute back.
> The SaaS/cloud/etc. companies themselves should fund the projects they depend on.
If anything, the same "valuable" "community" members, a lot of which includes such SaaS businesses and other freeloaders, seems to shout at projects trying to ensure their survival through formal ownership structures and license changes.
Sure, may be VCs specifically shouldn't be where the money comes from but this labour NEEDS to be paid otherwise shit like this will keep happening. Dear god, I looked it up just now, but next week will be the 10th anniversary of Heartbleed being introduced to the world. A decade, and really little has changed.
only point here is to get used to deal with files on the horizontal, not vertically way of thinking, which is kind of rooted in the way we program first hello world.