"In comments, it's ok to ask how to read an article and to help other users do so. But please don't post complaints about paywalls. Those are off topic."
After being on here for 10 years, I have zero expectations that policy will ever change. I see you've been on here quite a while yourself. I don't have that kind of hope anymore.
Websites pay each other for Referer hits. It may or may not be true that HN gets money for paywall stories, but I don't see any ads on HN, do you? Do you ever notice paywalled stories staying on the front page longer even when they have few upvotes?
Annoying paywall, how is businessinsider.com even allowed on HN nowadays? Here is the full article: http://archive.is/1oTMU
> While Istio is an open-source project — meaning anybody, anywhere can contribute code
Seems the meaning of open source is getting more and more perverse as time goes on. Open source never has meant that anyone can contribute code, it's just about you being able to use/modify the code as you wish. In no way does open source projects automatically means they have an open governance, although those two licenses/methods are often combined together.
> Annoying paywall, how is businessinsider.com even allowed on HN nowadays?
Just a "funny" thing to share: because of adblocking extensions I'm unable load any of their articles - whatever I click from BI, no matter if it's US or Polish version, I'm getting 404.
I have my iOS Safari set to display webpages in Reader View by default. Among the benefits is that BI’s paywall is avoided. I imagine that Reader Mode would also work for this purpose on Firefox desktop.
Also, I have Firefox Focus set as a Safari content blocker and have no issues.
I feel like that is a consequence of people being so entrenched in a centralized mindset that the possibility of a user customizing their own version of the software doesn't even occur to them. Open source is frequently touted as allowing anyone to make changes to the software to suit their needs. If somebody hears that while having the incorrect mental model of a single canonical version of software, I can see how they would assume that anyone can contribute to that single canonical version.
NO i mean when different ip's in a short time go to the Article with out reading it (login), they open the paywall so that they can 'hide' the paywall, a still be linked to sites like HN.
Why the down-vote? I have uBlock and Privacy Badger and no login at businessinsider and i see no paywall.
If this is a pure trademark issue, what keeps the "ticked off" organizations from forking the project under a non-trademarked name? Just call it cloudweasel, or something.
Only Google considers it to be a trademark issue. The external developers were hoping that having the project in the CNCF would allow them to have more say over its development while still benefiting from Google's ongoing contributions. Now they have to pick one or the other.
I'm not sure if calling Kubernetes a strategic mistake is real.
The fight over container orchestration was not over until everyone felt safe and could trust it. Development experience, features etc did play a role as well, but it probably couldn't win it alone. CNCF played a huge role to its widespread success if you don't count early adopters.
I'm not sure if this is a right move after all the support that Google did put behind CNCF.
I personally would be more happy to see Google being more transparent with their intends instead of saying it's all about trademark management.
Google needs improvement on self awareness w.r.t. open source. They used to be better at generating good will in the community. They've certainly done a lot to make many people needlessly unhappy in recent years. It's like a fat cat who owns the whole cake, yet claws the little guy for wanting a few crumbs.
Tempest in a teapot. What's wrong with competing open source foundations? Wrong people on the board?!
I find this supremely rich considering OpenJDK is 100% Oracle and not under the wing of any foundation. So much for open governance. Of course OpenJDK as an internal Oracle project has some hybrid imaginary "board" where Oracle has 2 of the 5 seats by default and you need 4 votes to veto something (which means, no dice without Oracle).
IBM of all should be used to fork projects just to control the pace and trademark. See the recent GraalVM fork (made by RedHat).
This is about pushing Google too live up to its commitments, and to its reputation as one of the biggest supporters of open source.
Comparing it to Oracle (or AWS etc) is a bit of a red herring as they are no friends to open source and make no bones about being ruthlessly out for themselves.
As an outsider all I see is political struggle of the kind corporations create.
As an user of open source I don't see why I would be stressed out this project didn't land under the stewardship of CNCF, a foundation created just 5 years ago.
27 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 65.2 ms ] threadWebsites pay each other for Referer hits. It may or may not be true that HN gets money for paywall stories, but I don't see any ads on HN, do you? Do you ever notice paywalled stories staying on the front page longer even when they have few upvotes?
> While Istio is an open-source project — meaning anybody, anywhere can contribute code
Seems the meaning of open source is getting more and more perverse as time goes on. Open source never has meant that anyone can contribute code, it's just about you being able to use/modify the code as you wish. In no way does open source projects automatically means they have an open governance, although those two licenses/methods are often combined together.
Just a "funny" thing to share: because of adblocking extensions I'm unable load any of their articles - whatever I click from BI, no matter if it's US or Polish version, I'm getting 404.
Also, I have Firefox Focus set as a Safari content blocker and have no issues.
Why the down-vote? I have uBlock and Privacy Badger and no login at businessinsider and i see no paywall.
Proof: https://imgur.com/a/53MNorf
EDIT: Nice i see! Everyone mentioned 'paywall' got a Down-vote @HN maybe wanna block that poorly written BI robot?
https://web.archive.org/web/20200712115236/http://www.busine...
The fight over container orchestration was not over until everyone felt safe and could trust it. Development experience, features etc did play a role as well, but it probably couldn't win it alone. CNCF played a huge role to its widespread success if you don't count early adopters.
I'm not sure if this is a right move after all the support that Google did put behind CNCF.
I personally would be more happy to see Google being more transparent with their intends instead of saying it's all about trademark management.
I find this supremely rich considering OpenJDK is 100% Oracle and not under the wing of any foundation. So much for open governance. Of course OpenJDK as an internal Oracle project has some hybrid imaginary "board" where Oracle has 2 of the 5 seats by default and you need 4 votes to veto something (which means, no dice without Oracle).
IBM of all should be used to fork projects just to control the pace and trademark. See the recent GraalVM fork (made by RedHat).
Comparing it to Oracle (or AWS etc) is a bit of a red herring as they are no friends to open source and make no bones about being ruthlessly out for themselves.
As an user of open source I don't see why I would be stressed out this project didn't land under the stewardship of CNCF, a foundation created just 5 years ago.