The crazier part is a reddit post on AWS was made for someone releasing a $3 a month closed source version of this, that received a lot of traction, but a bit of flack for being closed source was made 3 hours before the first commit. This guy 100% took the idea and the open source parts and recreated it to post here. Look at the readme and compare them. It is almost a 1:1 copy of the other. This dude is hella sketch. And if this is getting traction we are cooked as developers.
That someone would be you (I saw that Reddit post: https://www.reddit.com/r/aws/comments/1q3ik9z/i_made_a_termi...). I'm not sure I would describe the collective response as having "a lot of traction"; most respondents panned both the price and the closed-source nature of the offering.
What you're learning here is that there's not really a viable market for simple, easily replicable tools. People simply won't pay for them when they can spin up a Claude session, build one in a few hours (often unattended!), and post it to GitHub.
Real profit lies in real value. In tooling, value lies in time or money saved, plus some sort of moat that others cannot easily cross. Lick your wounds and keep innovating!
Please dont open source your code if you’re going to call people hella sketch for deriving from it. Did he violate your license? Attack that action, not the person doing open source.
It is indeed not open sourced, as the repo only has a README and a download script. The "open source" they are referring to I think is the similar README convention.
> And the folder structure is almost an exact mirror of mine
Even though Rust has patterns on how to organize source code, similar folder structure is unlikely, particularly since the original code is not public so it would have to be one hell of a coincidence. (the funniest potential explanation for this would be that both people used the same LLMs to code the TUI app)
It looks like the first commit was just a squash and merge, I probably would never trust a public commit history as some kind of source of truth anyways. I'm curious what your issue is?
> I probably would never trust a public commit history as some kind of source of truth
What _would_ you trust as a source of truth for source code if not a public commit log? I agree that a squash commit’s timestamp in particular ought not be taken as authoritative for all of the changes in the commit, but commit history in general feels like the highest quality data most projects will ever have.
I really hate when cryptocurrency has valid applications but in this case, you're looking for a public adversarial append only log system which is what a blockchain is.
The crazier part is a reddit post on AWS was made for someone releasing a $3 a month closed source version of this, that received a lot of traction, but a bit of flack for being closed source was made 3 hours before the first commit. This guy 100% took the idea and the open source parts and recreated it to post here. Look at the readme and compare them. It is almost a 1:1 copy of the other. This dude is hella sketch. And if this is getting traction we are cooked as developers.
That someone would be you (I saw that Reddit post: https://www.reddit.com/r/aws/comments/1q3ik9z/i_made_a_termi...). I'm not sure I would describe the collective response as having "a lot of traction"; most respondents panned both the price and the closed-source nature of the offering.
What you're learning here is that there's not really a viable market for simple, easily replicable tools. People simply won't pay for them when they can spin up a Claude session, build one in a few hours (often unattended!), and post it to GitHub.
Real profit lies in real value. In tooling, value lies in time or money saved, plus some sort of moat that others cannot easily cross. Lick your wounds and keep innovating!
Please dont open source your code if you’re going to call people hella sketch for deriving from it. Did he violate your license? Attack that action, not the person doing open source.
To add since the poster is being confusing: this is the GitHub repo for their project: https://github.com/fells-code/seamless-glance-distro
It is indeed not open sourced, as the repo only has a README and a download script. The "open source" they are referring to I think is the similar README convention.
Which makes this comment they made on Reddit especially odd: https://www.reddit.com/r/aws/comments/1q3ik9z/comment/nxpq7t...
> And the folder structure is almost an exact mirror of mine
Even though Rust has patterns on how to organize source code, similar folder structure is unlikely, particularly since the original code is not public so it would have to be one hell of a coincidence. (the funniest potential explanation for this would be that both people used the same LLMs to code the TUI app)
“Someone”
It looks like the first commit was just a squash and merge, I probably would never trust a public commit history as some kind of source of truth anyways. I'm curious what your issue is?
> I probably would never trust a public commit history as some kind of source of truth
What _would_ you trust as a source of truth for source code if not a public commit log? I agree that a squash commit’s timestamp in particular ought not be taken as authoritative for all of the changes in the commit, but commit history in general feels like the highest quality data most projects will ever have.
Until you realize it’s trivial for an LLM to fabricate it in about a minute
I really hate when cryptocurrency has valid applications but in this case, you're looking for a public adversarial append only log system which is what a blockchain is.