I feel like the governments of the world need to put resources into some of these major spokes of technology. I know 1B is a lot of money, but the US throws that around. Imagine 1B into python. Nah, don't even imagine that, its too much money. Imagine 50M.
I'm somewhat surprised big tech hasnt lobbied for something like this. Maybe they like their silos. Everyone gets a cut, don't shake the boat.
cmd -f rust. Nope. C. Nope. Headers. Nope. Meson. Nope.
Poetry doesn't handle the hard part of packaging, which is getting compiled dependencies working on approximately 50 different combinations of platform, architecture, version, and so on.
Python is of course a major boon to humanity, but the things that need funding are typically things that corporations aren't using. It's our reliance on private spokes of technology (think: app stores & sales platforms, operating systems, hardware designs, etc) that are major risks to the long-term stability of our society and economy.
I mean, MOJO has 100 million in funding and is 'supposedly' building a faster and better python.
Programming improvements are all about hiring a small group of highly talented engineers. Funding a lab of 10 tenured R1 level PL researchers to work on python fulltime will likely cost $5 million/yr and should be more than enough for whatever 'leap forwards' people want to facilitate.
I have mixed feelings about how "welcoming" PSF is for new contributors. On the one hand, I've managed to get a number of enhancements into CPython. On the other hand, I've fixed small longstanding issues (e.g. to docs) and had the change requests languish for years.
I think we already give Github far too much influence over the free software world without also paying attention to who they see fit to hand awards to.
I wonder whether Github would have considered the PSF to be "wonderfully welcoming" if they hadn't switched from their self-hosted bug tracker to Github's offering last year.
Personally I don't find being asked to read [1] before I can submit a bug report at all welcoming.
I agree. GitHub is the biggest player, but it's a pretty layer on top of an inherently distributed system. If I get tired of Microsoft's shenanigans, I can pack up move to a competitor with only the normal amount of friction (like moving bug reports over, etc.). I use Gitea for my personal projects and it handles 95% of the code-hosting bits just as well.
I'm not so relaxed about how easy it will be to move to a new issue tracker.
When you're moving from a self-hosted system to a proprietary system, you can do the work yourself to make sure there are redirects from the old URLs to the new ones.
That option isn't likely to be available when you're moving the other way.
I observe that github is happy for you to "bring your own domain" for github pages, but AIUI issue and PR URLs are always under github.com .
Maintaining links is going to be a pain in the neck, sure. I don't mean to make light of it. However, that's kind of inherent with going from one service to another, and not something GitHub's doing to make it artificially harder.
I agree. I'm not, at this stage, tremendously worried about Microsoft finding ways to use its control of Github to get its own way in some kind of conflict.
I am worried about what happens if, or when, Github's owners decide it's time to stop caring about having a good reputation and instead squeeze it for as much profit as possible (what we seem to be calling "enshittification" these days).
Pointing git remotes somewhere different shouldn't be a huge pain, but all those issue trackers are a different matter.
> we already give Github far too much influence over the free software
Yup.
I was at GitHub Universe last week. It's very clear GitHub (Microsoft) is trying to become like AWS but for the SDLC instead of for runtime.
Soon we'll all be using GitHub full-time to do all our coding in the browser with integrated runtime envs and CI and AI along for the ride. You get a taste with some fancy OSS demo projects which they do legitimately support. Then you want to integrate with those OSS libraries, so you have to dip your toes into GitHub's ecosystem. And if you want updates and security and to not have public repos ... then time to pony up.
GitHub does support OSS in real ways, but it's pretty obviously a loss-leading marketing / freemium strategy. It's not surprising they give themslves a pat on the back - it's marketing after all. This is not a bad or even amoral thing, but let's not be naive.
They're eating their competitors' lunch. Many of the vendors at GitHub Universe had feature-sets that had clear overlap with GitHub's own ambitions, particularly in the security space. GitHub can and will put them out of business when the opportunity strikes. These ambitions are clear. C'est la vie.
What's less clear is how developer-friendly the ecosystem will remain when everything is locked into GitHub's world,. And it's even less clear how they will ratchet up pricing (or ratchet down interoperability or industry standards) as more gets sucked in.
It is an enterprise B2B company and a part of Microsoft, for better and for worse.
As far as I can see, the only kind of leverage left that we have against big corporations exploiting non-tech folks is creating OS software and giving it away for free. This is what they can’t compete with.
The effect is extremely strong. One factor is that almost everything works identically between work and personal environments. Same git, same CI, same settings, same dependabot, same PRs, same everything. My personal open source projects get it for free, at work the employer pays.
In most other cases of technology choices, work and personal environments can differ a lot (languages, operating system, development machine, database systems, …). That makes choices less sticky.
I scanned for the amount of money that comes with this award and I don't see any. Is it a diploma or badge they are so happy about or am I missing something.
"The manager of a fruit-and-vegetable shop places in his window, among the onions and carrots, the slogan: "Workers of the world, unite!" Why does he do it? What is he trying to communicate to the world? Is he genuinely enthusiastic about the idea of unity among the workers of the world? Is his enthusiasm so great that he feels an irrepressible impulse to acquaint the public with his ideals? Has he really given more than a moment's thought to how such a unification might occur and what it would mean?
I think it can safely be assumed that the overwhelming majority of shopkeepers never think about the slogans they put in their windows, nor do they use them to express their real opinions. That poster was delivered to our greengrocer from the enterprise headquarters along with the onions and carrots. He put them all into the window simply because it has been done that way for years, because everyone does it, and because that is the way it has to be. If he were to refuse, there could be trouble. He could be reproached for not having the proper decoration in his window; someone might even accuse him of disloyalty. He does it because these things must be done if one is to get along in life. It is one of the thousands of details that guarantee him a relatively tranquil life "in harmony with society," as they say.
Obviously the greengrocer is indifferent to the semantic content of the slogan on exhibit; he does not put the slogan in his window from any personal desire to acquaint the public with the ideal it expresses. This, of course, does not mean that his action has no motive or significance at all, or that the slogan communicates nothing to anyone. The slogan is really a sign, and as such it contains a subliminal but very definite message. Verbally, it might be expressed this way: "I, the greengrocer XY, live here and I know what I must do. I behave in the manner expected of me. I can be depended upon and am beyond reproach. I am obedient and therefore I have the right to be left in peace." This message, of course, has an addressee: it is directed above, to the greengrocer's superior, and at the same time it is a shield that protects the greengrocer from potential informers. The slogan's real meaning, therefore, is rooted firmly in the greengrocer's existence. It reflects his vital interests. But what are those vital interests?
Let us take note: if the greengrocer had been instructed to display the slogan "I am afraid and therefore unquestioningly obedient;' he would not be nearly as indifferent to its semantics, even though the statement would reflect the truth. The greengrocer would be embarrassed and ashamed to put such an unequivocal statement of his own degradation in the shop window, and quite naturally so, for he is a human being and thus has a sense of his own dignity. To overcome this complication, his expression of loyalty must take the form of a sign which, at least on its textual surface, indicates a level of disinterested conviction. It must allow the greengrocer to say, "What's wrong with the workers of the world uniting?" Thus the sign helps the greengrocer to conceal from himself the low foundations of his obedience, at the same time concealing the low foundations of power. It hides them behind the facade of something high. And that something is ideology."
I read that book during 2020. It should be obligatory reading for anyone who appreciates Orwell's 1984, and provides a concise, first-hand account of how humans manufacture and sustain the systems of their own oppression.
One of the most fascinating insights was that those at the top of the power system are not the most free, as you might think, but rather the most constrained. Those at the very bottom are the only ones free to act exactly as they wish (hence the title).
There is also insightful discussion whether dissidents should act within or without the system, and raises the point that "the system" itself provides powerful tools that anyone can wield (eg, a CoC).
> it's a community that embraces diversity and inclusion at its core. Through initiatives like PyCon Charlas, PSF breaks language barriers, providing a platform for Spanish-speaking contributors.
This is a comically US-centric "diversity initiative". Just goes to show how difficult it is to break out of that mindset. Then again, the US is both a vast and an isolated country, so I cut ya'll some slack.
34 comments
[ 4.0 ms ] story [ 47.6 ms ] threadI'm somewhat surprised big tech hasnt lobbied for something like this. Maybe they like their silos. Everyone gets a cut, don't shake the boat.
[0] https://python-poetry.org
Poetry doesn't handle the hard part of packaging, which is getting compiled dependencies working on approximately 50 different combinations of platform, architecture, version, and so on.
Something like python's GIL issue is something with a clear end game. It just needs resources.
Programming improvements are all about hiring a small group of highly talented engineers. Funding a lab of 10 tenured R1 level PL researchers to work on python fulltime will likely cost $5 million/yr and should be more than enough for whatever 'leap forwards' people want to facilitate.
I wonder whether Github would have considered the PSF to be "wonderfully welcoming" if they hadn't switched from their self-hosted bug tracker to Github's offering last year.
Personally I don't find being asked to read [1] before I can submit a bug report at all welcoming.
[1] https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-t...
https://ploum.net/2023-02-22-leaving-github.html
Monopoly: the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service.
Github does not have in any sense exclusive possession or control of hosted version control. It is a popular choice, that's it.
When you're moving from a self-hosted system to a proprietary system, you can do the work yourself to make sure there are redirects from the old URLs to the new ones.
That option isn't likely to be available when you're moving the other way.
I observe that github is happy for you to "bring your own domain" for github pages, but AIUI issue and PR URLs are always under github.com .
I am worried about what happens if, or when, Github's owners decide it's time to stop caring about having a good reputation and instead squeeze it for as much profit as possible (what we seem to be calling "enshittification" these days).
Pointing git remotes somewhere different shouldn't be a huge pain, but all those issue trackers are a different matter.
Yup.
I was at GitHub Universe last week. It's very clear GitHub (Microsoft) is trying to become like AWS but for the SDLC instead of for runtime.
Soon we'll all be using GitHub full-time to do all our coding in the browser with integrated runtime envs and CI and AI along for the ride. You get a taste with some fancy OSS demo projects which they do legitimately support. Then you want to integrate with those OSS libraries, so you have to dip your toes into GitHub's ecosystem. And if you want updates and security and to not have public repos ... then time to pony up.
GitHub does support OSS in real ways, but it's pretty obviously a loss-leading marketing / freemium strategy. It's not surprising they give themslves a pat on the back - it's marketing after all. This is not a bad or even amoral thing, but let's not be naive.
They're eating their competitors' lunch. Many of the vendors at GitHub Universe had feature-sets that had clear overlap with GitHub's own ambitions, particularly in the security space. GitHub can and will put them out of business when the opportunity strikes. These ambitions are clear. C'est la vie.
What's less clear is how developer-friendly the ecosystem will remain when everything is locked into GitHub's world,. And it's even less clear how they will ratchet up pricing (or ratchet down interoperability or industry standards) as more gets sucked in.
It is an enterprise B2B company and a part of Microsoft, for better and for worse.
In most other cases of technology choices, work and personal environments can differ a lot (languages, operating system, development machine, database systems, …). That makes choices less sticky.
I do not know of any other platform that gives you completely free CI/CD, there is either a usual limit or its a paid feature.
Microsoft, for whatever reason, is betting on Python.
At this point both organizations are just different Microsoft's tentacles.
"The manager of a fruit-and-vegetable shop places in his window, among the onions and carrots, the slogan: "Workers of the world, unite!" Why does he do it? What is he trying to communicate to the world? Is he genuinely enthusiastic about the idea of unity among the workers of the world? Is his enthusiasm so great that he feels an irrepressible impulse to acquaint the public with his ideals? Has he really given more than a moment's thought to how such a unification might occur and what it would mean?
I think it can safely be assumed that the overwhelming majority of shopkeepers never think about the slogans they put in their windows, nor do they use them to express their real opinions. That poster was delivered to our greengrocer from the enterprise headquarters along with the onions and carrots. He put them all into the window simply because it has been done that way for years, because everyone does it, and because that is the way it has to be. If he were to refuse, there could be trouble. He could be reproached for not having the proper decoration in his window; someone might even accuse him of disloyalty. He does it because these things must be done if one is to get along in life. It is one of the thousands of details that guarantee him a relatively tranquil life "in harmony with society," as they say.
Obviously the greengrocer is indifferent to the semantic content of the slogan on exhibit; he does not put the slogan in his window from any personal desire to acquaint the public with the ideal it expresses. This, of course, does not mean that his action has no motive or significance at all, or that the slogan communicates nothing to anyone. The slogan is really a sign, and as such it contains a subliminal but very definite message. Verbally, it might be expressed this way: "I, the greengrocer XY, live here and I know what I must do. I behave in the manner expected of me. I can be depended upon and am beyond reproach. I am obedient and therefore I have the right to be left in peace." This message, of course, has an addressee: it is directed above, to the greengrocer's superior, and at the same time it is a shield that protects the greengrocer from potential informers. The slogan's real meaning, therefore, is rooted firmly in the greengrocer's existence. It reflects his vital interests. But what are those vital interests?
Let us take note: if the greengrocer had been instructed to display the slogan "I am afraid and therefore unquestioningly obedient;' he would not be nearly as indifferent to its semantics, even though the statement would reflect the truth. The greengrocer would be embarrassed and ashamed to put such an unequivocal statement of his own degradation in the shop window, and quite naturally so, for he is a human being and thus has a sense of his own dignity. To overcome this complication, his expression of loyalty must take the form of a sign which, at least on its textual surface, indicates a level of disinterested conviction. It must allow the greengrocer to say, "What's wrong with the workers of the world uniting?" Thus the sign helps the greengrocer to conceal from himself the low foundations of his obedience, at the same time concealing the low foundations of power. It hides them behind the facade of something high. And that something is ideology."
Vaclav Havel - The Power of the Powerless
I read that book during 2020. It should be obligatory reading for anyone who appreciates Orwell's 1984, and provides a concise, first-hand account of how humans manufacture and sustain the systems of their own oppression.
One of the most fascinating insights was that those at the top of the power system are not the most free, as you might think, but rather the most constrained. Those at the very bottom are the only ones free to act exactly as they wish (hence the title).
There is also insightful discussion whether dissidents should act within or without the system, and raises the point that "the system" itself provides powerful tools that anyone can wield (eg, a CoC).
Nothing wrong, but it is so easy to forget how much of tech is owned by a handful of companies.
This is a comically US-centric "diversity initiative". Just goes to show how difficult it is to break out of that mindset. Then again, the US is both a vast and an isolated country, so I cut ya'll some slack.