This is a good example of a program I would like to use if it was distributed in the standard repo of my OS, rather than totally unvetted on the Microsoft Github page of a random developer.
PS: I don't know why HN allows downvoting seeing how it is always so abused. Nothing I wrote here is factually false, and what remains is just my personal opinion as a principled user of FOSS. A bit of tolerance for others' viewpoints is in order.
> This is a good example of a program I would like to use if it was distributed in the standard repo of my OS
So why are you waiting? Be the change you seek. Simply become a maintainer of a distro, and publish the package there. Repeat for all the major distros.
The response I was expecting and deserved. That still leaves the residual whine about Github.
What? That's how open source works
Package management in the distro is also how FOSS works?
Things that end up in curated package repositories like those of the various significant distros, have usually spent time growing on the random developer's own page (most common in the past) or said random developer's account on a forge like github (most common in more modern times).
Standard repos might be were many discover things, but those things don't normally get there until they've build a following, so the random developers page is the more significant vector overall.
Fair enough. It would be nice if more developers would at least consider using the forges that don't belong to an ethically compromised big-tech oligopolist. The options are there.
[dead]
for what we need downvoting and upvoting? I thought: - upvote if you like/agree - downvote if you dont like/disagree Am I wrong?
This reads like parody! In a sane world (and I believe the HN community rules are fairly sane) we should be upvoting things that are interesting, or insightful, or informative, or otherwise tickle our curiosity. Not just because we agree with them! After all, who cares that I agree with something? Everyone has an opinion on everything, opinions in themselves are cheap and uninteresting.
It's not interesting or insightful to take potshots at a project because it's hosted on GitHub.
So one cannot have or express an opinion on hosting as it is a priori and uncontestably lacking in insight and universally uninteresting?
And HNN requires either or both: opinions must be insightful or interesting.
And what is either of those is objective, self-evident, and not even slightly subjective.
Right? How is this not merely a blanket way to assert opinions that are themselves boring and un-insightful ("hosting opinions are forbidden" is the de facto claim)?
Hosting on Github has been an up voted story several HNN times. Yet here its not interesting or insightful.
If the point is "potshots" why not ask or suggest more developed opinions instead of potshotting the potshots? Why not clearly note that "potshot comments on any topic are not optimal" instead of making this seem to be about hosting or what is insightful?
A down vote is not meaningful feedback and clarity tends to work better.
It's downright intolerant to downvote (as opposed to not upvote) a comment which simply advocates values in line with FOSS. I even said I would like to use this program.
I can't speak for others, but I downvote to recommend other readers that the post is not worth reading. Not because I disagree with it, but because it's off topic in a way or another.
If TFA is about a tool, I tend to downvote comments that don't talk about the merits of tool but rather about the hosting website, the language it's written in, whether or not it "smells AI", English mistakes in the readme, and so on.
On the other side, if I reply to a comment I always upvote it, even if my reply is to refute it. In fact if I felt the need to add anything to it, it was by definition worth dealing with it!
You're wrong.
"Users should vote and comment when they run across something they personally find interesting—not for promotion."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html#:~:text=Use...