[HN Gopher] Gem.coop
___________________________________________________________________
Gem.coop
Author : mbStavola
Score : 416 points
Date : 2025-10-06 04:59 UTC (18 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (gem.coop)
(TXT) w3m dump (gem.coop)
| bloudermilk wrote:
| It's amazing to see the open source community step up like this.
| Kudos and gratitude to everyone that made this happen!
| lemper wrote:
| yeah, but still, the maintainers need to be paid for their time
| and expertise. not to mention, although bandwidth and storage
| is cheap, somebody still have to foot the bill. i suggest
| people donate to this project.
| splittydev wrote:
| Is there any context on why? Is there some controversy regarding
| RubyGems.org I'm not aware of?
| KingOfCoders wrote:
| As I understood it, to secure (their words) the supply chain,
| they took ownership of the code and repo (which others disputed
| as being owned by them) and kicked out users from Github.
|
| It is said the underlying cause is that devs push rv which is
| threatening RubyGems.
| mosselman wrote:
| How is rv threatening rubygems? I am pretty excited about rv
| on first glance, I tried it and it was too beta when I did to
| work nicely, but definitely good to have a uv type tool for
| ruby.
| KingOfCoders wrote:
| "Yes, I agree. And some of the "admins" even announced
| publicly many days ago they were launching a competitor
| tool and were funding raising for it. I'd not trust the
| system to such "admin"."
|
| https://bsky.app/profile/rmfranca.bsky.social/post/3lz7alpo
| b...
|
| See https://spinel.coop/
|
| "Spinel develops rv, the next-generation Ruby version
| manager"
| phoronixrly wrote:
| This doesn't explain how rv is threatening rubygems in
| any way.
| x3n0ph3n3 wrote:
| They were using the name "rubygems" to fund-raise for
| not-"rubygems."
| phoronixrly wrote:
| But how is this a conflict? Both are not-for-profit
| projects with the same goal? How can one even use the
| term 'competition' in this context? What if the Ruby
| community embraces a new and better package manager? This
| is, again, a net win for the Ruby community, and both
| projects strive for that?
| x3n0ph3n3 wrote:
| It doesn't really matter if it's a non-profit. How do you
| think your company would react if you started raising
| money using their name?
| phoronixrly wrote:
| Is Rubygems a company? My mind cannot comprehend why are
| people conflating not-for-profit open-source projects
| with for-profit companies...
|
| If Rubygems was a company, they'd have a trademark,
| they'd have patents, they'd have lawyers to protect the
| _money they were making_ from their brand and product.
| But we are speaking about not-for-profit open-source
| projects, not for for-profit corporations!
| wallmountedtv wrote:
| In short, a hostile takeover forced by Shopify through Ruby
| Central.
|
| It was sparked after Ruby Central chose to platform an
| extremist figure prominently for their last RailsConf against
| the wishes of the sponsors, losing them a lot of sponsorship
| money, as well as community support.
|
| https://joel.drapper.me/p/rubygems-takeover/
| mnx wrote:
| Might be worth noting the figure in question is the creator
| of Ruby on Rails.
| phoronixrly wrote:
| He deserves a few more titles now. Like prolific
| xenophobia[1] and sexism[2] proponent, and generally a
| person that has no connection with the real world[3].
|
| [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20250920061923/https://worl
| d.hey...
|
| [2] https://web.archive.org/web/20250920061926/https://worl
| d.hey...
|
| [3] https://web.archive.org/web/20250918051013/https://worl
| d.hey...
| JimDabell wrote:
| > It was sparked after Ruby Central chose to platform an
| extremist figure prominently for their last RailsConf
|
| This is so incredibly one-sided that it misleads more than it
| informs.
|
| The person they are talking about is DHH. Inviting _the
| creator of Rails_ to speak at RailsConf - a conference for
| Rails - is not the outlandish behaviour this comment makes it
| sound like.
| shevy-java wrote:
| Agreed. There is a lot of conflation of statements that are
| not directly connected.
|
| The whole DHH argument, for instance, as well as some
| people having a vendetta about him, is not, or not
| directly, related to the hostile take-over of rubygems.org.
| There is a slight partial overlap, but it is a separate
| discussion (even if DHH was involved with the take-over via
| Shopify because he does not like Arko or Shopify wanting
| more power-control to bully the independent developers at
| rubygems.org with more corporate rules and restrictions;
| and, by the way, DHH never mentions Arko's name, but even
| this is a separate discussion still. For instance I
| specifically do not care about rails nor DHH really, but
| the hostile take-over was a complete no-go. Ruby Central
| really pissed off too many people here and unfortunately
| there are still many open questions that ruby-core has to
| think about. I am not necessarily saying all came with
| malicious intent, because I think there is an english
| language barrier too in regards to Hiroshi Shibata, but
| even then it may be better to have someone with better
| knowledge about the english language in charge of gems;
| there seems to be some strange disconnect or translation
| going on between english, into japanese and japanese
| culture, and it is super-confusing.)
| byroot wrote:
| > a hostile takeover forced by Shopify through Ruby Central.
|
| That's entirely unsubstantiated.
| joeldrapper wrote:
| I heard it directly from people directly involved.
| byroot wrote:
| So it is unsubstantiated.
| Kudos wrote:
| This is a little glib, you dropped "Entirely" because you
| know multiple first hand accounts are actually worth
| something. If you want to argue the credibility of those
| accounts, then please be specific about it.
| byroot wrote:
| I dropped the entirely because I am on mobile.
|
| We don't have multiple first hand accounts. All we have
| is second hand account being relayed by someone with a
| massive axe to grind against Shopify.
|
| There are a lot of truly committed Rubyists at Shopify,
| particularly the one handling the relationship with Ruby
| Central.
|
| The idea that Shopify had done what Joel aledges without
| a single one of the involved parties on the Shopify side
| blowing the whistle is preposterous.
| shevy-java wrote:
| So you critisize Joel because he worked at Shopify. He
| pointed that out when he wrote the article.
|
| Let's add here that YOU also worked at Shopify, until
| recently.
|
| IF we are going to be critical, then let's be complete
| here.
|
| I actually think there is a lot of validity to the
| statement made that Shopify is NOT a neutral party here.
| We can dispute how much Shopify was involved, but to
| assume "all is unsubstantiated" while not even disclosing
| one's own work at Shopify, feels super-strange here.
| byroot wrote:
| > He pointed that out when he wrote the article.
|
| Did he point out how it ended, and how he spent the
| better part of two years having public tantrums about it
| on Twitter?
|
| Disclosing that you worked somewhere isn't relevant.
| Worse, it can easily give the impression that there is
| some insider knowledge involved.
|
| What is relevant is how the relationship ended.
|
| > Let's add here that YOU also worked at Shopify, until
| recently.
|
| Yes, and I left over some major disagreements, hence if I
| have a bias, it would be _against_ Shopify, not in favor.
| pil0u wrote:
| This article was the most nuanced I found while everything was
| still hot. https://archive.ph/SEzoV
| phoronixrly wrote:
| I hope they tackle the actual main issue with Rubygems -- lack of
| any sort of code signing... (I know the functionality exists, but
| it's not required to publish in Rubygems, and off by default on
| gem install. In other words it's as if it doesn't exist)
|
| The fash problem in the Rails ecosystem is next on the list, and
| I hope there is community consensus to fork this as well.
| burnt-resistor wrote:
| It has code signing. It's just optional, inconvenient, and so
| unused because of Tragedy of the Commons and complacency.
| https://guides.rubygems.org/security/
|
| https://www.benjaminfleischer.com/2013/11/08/how-to-sign-you...
| phoronixrly wrote:
| As I said, it's as good as no code signing. The very lack of
| a chain of trust stemming from rubygems that can be used to
| verify gem authenticity makes the whole thing useless.
| simianparrot wrote:
| What does "fash problem" mean?
| phoronixrly wrote:
| If you know you know.
| ramon156 wrote:
| There's some weird opinions coming from mostly DHH. My
| personal take is that they're blatantly racist, but everyone
| can have their own
|
| Here's some fun facts:
|
| - DHH enforced a "No Politics at Work" policy.
|
| - DHH wrote a post expressing that he wouldn't want to live
| in London anymore because it's "no longer full of native
| Brits", and expressed support for a Tommy Robinson march he
| called "heartwarming". Tommy Robinson is described as "an
| anti-Islam campaigner and one of the UK's most prominent far-
| right activists.". The march DHH praised featured speakers
| calling for ethnic cleansing via "remigration" and banning
| all non-Christian religions.
|
| - DHH also promoted "demographic replacement" conspiracy
| theories and used language connecting immigration to crime,
| particularly regarding "Pakistani rape gangs" and street
| theft.
|
| - DHH has been publicly critical of Diversity, Equity, and
| Inclusion initiatives. This one isn't backed by facts, so
| take it with a grain of salt.
| ishouldbework wrote:
| Cannot speak for the US, but in Europe immigration is
| connected to crime increase in general. The Ukraine
| refugees are one of few statistical exceptions.
| mijoharas wrote:
| Have you got any references for this claim?
| ishouldbework wrote:
| Well, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10611-02
| 4-10144-y seems to claim there is a link for sexual
| crimes. This paper suggests that there is some delayed
| effect https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
| S092753712....
| busterarm wrote:
| I think a lot of people are forgetting or at least choose
| to ignore that DHH is Danish (and specifically a Danish
| expat) and is probably more inclined to have
| controversial views on immigration from majority Islamic
| countries. That's not to give his statements a pass, but
| to give them some needed context.
|
| And no, I'm not saying that Danes are racist.
| bsammon wrote:
| I think a lot of people don't know why being Danish is
| relevant. Is there some reason why controversial views on
| immigration might be less suprising coming from a Dane?
| drak0n1c wrote:
| Denmark is the rare case of a European nation where its
| center-left listened to feedback from the electorate
| early on and earnestly adopted policies restricting
| immigration and refugee admission. As a result they had
| no populist backlash, and that policy position is
| uncontroversial to hold publicly.
| mrisoli wrote:
| He doubled down on his opinion by sharing a sequence of
| posts from a X account that denounces "woke activism" in
| the software industry and open source projects. He
| criticised the political activism in open source projects,
| then, ironically, suggested Palmer Luckey should step in to
| steward NixOs.
| maxwellg wrote:
| Ironic that DHH is politically active enough that it
| affects his day to day activities and public perception of
| his company - kind of the exact opposite of his own policy
| he expects his employees to abide by.
| x3n0ph3n3 wrote:
| He posts about it on his personal blog, not on his
| company Slack.
| phoronixrly wrote:
| Is world.hey.com/dhh a personal blog? It's literally on
| his company's domain... At least in the company slack
| your fash opinions would reach just your poor
| colleagues...
| marknutter wrote:
| That's the part where the term "fascist" is misused to smear
| somebody they disagree with. It can be safely ignored.
| steve_gh wrote:
| I'm really pleased to see this happening, but sad that it has
| come to this.
|
| What I'd really like to see is a whole bunch of people acting
| more professionally. Who you pray to, who you vote for, and who
| you sleep with are irrelevant to a professional context - and
| open source development is a professional context. So everyone
| needs to keep their professional and personal lives separate. I
| know that at best I would be disciplined, and at worst sacked if
| I made comments on the lines that some of the lead players in
| this sorry saga have made. And that's not pointing the finger at
| any one person.
| hiimkeks wrote:
| If who you vote for will put me into a torture camp (or
| otherwise devalues my life or personhood), then I can't work
| with you, so no it is not irrelevant.
|
| (neither the "me" nor the "you" here refer to you or me
| personally ofc.)
| pil0u wrote:
| Agreed. Your example could sound like exaggerated, but
| silence is a form of opinion, of vote, of approval. Even in a
| professional context, because work is _part of_ the society
| we live in.
|
| This whole "DHH situation" with Rails has put my mind in
| weird position. I admire the Rails creator, the business man,
| the speaker. I admire what he builds, how passionate he is
| about his work and open-source software. But I very strongly
| disagree with his vision of immigration, nationalism,
| parenting, well most of his vision of society.
|
| I was made aware about these opinions _because_ people talked
| about it. Thanks to these people, I read and listen to him
| with more nuance, more critical thinking. That does not
| necessarily mean I would discard Rails, cancel the dude or
| write shit about him, but that surely means that I will be
| more careful about how the opinions of this 1 person could
| impact mine, the ecosystem I work with and the larger
| ecosystem I live in that is society.
| kortilla wrote:
| > but silence is a form of opinion, of vote, of approval.
|
| No it's not. Indifference is not approval.
|
| Open source is global and someone in a university in
| Argentina contributing some features does not "approve" of
| anything because she didn't participate in some bickering
| about US identity politics.
| yxhuvud wrote:
| This is a lot more than just US identity politics, as
| shown by the fully idiotic take on London he did.
| zen928 wrote:
| Indifference is acceptance of the status quo, though,
| yeah? Whether that be on a conscious level of active
| avoidance or on a subconscious level of never mentally
| aligning it as a priority to build further understanding
| to form a thought-out opinion.
|
| There actually is a binary view on your stance against
| things when you see unfettered hate spread by others and
| choose (at some level) to not have an opinion. We've seen
| it before, we see it now, we'll see it again. Not
| everyone has the same privilege as you to remain head
| under sand until there's no commotion left to dodge.
| steve_gh wrote:
| > but silence is a form of opinion, of vote, of approval.
|
| I disagree. We don't have to have an opinion on everything.
| And what worries me is those (both on the left and on the
| right) who think that silence is a form of opinion or
| approval. It's getting very close to "those who are not
| with us are against us". And that's a worldview I have very
| little time for.
| pil0u wrote:
| Yes, I agree with you. Silence, _when you do not have an
| opinion_ , is totally fine. And yes, not having an
| opinion on everything is absolutely fine, probably sane
| even.
|
| I was answering a comment about a vote that would put you
| in a torture camp, so a vote on which you are certainly
| opinionated about.
|
| In other words, don't self-censor when you think
| something is not right.
| CaptArmchair wrote:
| I'll put it like this.
|
| Close by where I live is a monument for civilians who
| were taken from their houses and shot by the German
| occupiers during the last months of WWII. Simply because
| they were suspected of having distributed pamphlets.
| There wasn't even evidence to that claim, and retribution
| was a thing.
|
| I passed that monument countless of times during my
| youth, giving me pause to contemplate.
|
| It's a tangible reminder of what ultimately happens when
| people stay silent about something as final and poignant
| as one group denying the existence of another group for
| whatever reasons.
|
| I have no problem with expressing differences over world
| views. I take issue when that world view entails denying
| the other side's existence because of differences, and a
| fervent intent to act on that notion.
|
| It's a matter of boundaries, and speaking up.
| giraffe_lady wrote:
| > And what worries me is those (both on the left and on
| the right) who think that silence is a form of opinion or
| approval.
|
| Definitely definitely. When a racist paramilitary is
| disappearing my neighbors my primary concern is whether
| people will consider me complicit for publicly stating
| that I have no duty to interfere.
|
| You don't have to have an opinion on everything but you
| do have to have an opinion on some things. Or I mean,
| obviously you don't, but then you have to accept the
| social consequences of cowardice.
| jaredcwhite wrote:
| > that's a worldview I have very little time for
|
| Only people who already live in a position of privilege
| get to have "little time" and settle for worldviews which
| advocate for a sort of bland tolerance of extremism. I
| can assure you, for people who are being actively harmed
| by hateful rhetoric and political policies, "those who
| are not with us are against us" is absolutely a reality.
| blast wrote:
| Silence can also indicate disapproval.
| fourseventy wrote:
| Please stop with this type of ridiculous hyperbole.
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| People would be less inclined to say ridiculous things like
| this if they didn't keep happening.
| ishouldbework wrote:
| "will put me into a torture camp" for sure, but "devalues my
| life or personhood" is pretty vague. So, for example, if I
| value guns and consider them necessary for my well being and
| personal safety, should I refuse to work with anyone who
| votes for increased gun control? This sounds like a recipe
| for very fragmented, unstable society.
| bronson wrote:
| If gun owners are being denied health care or being told
| who they can marry ("it's illegal to marry a fellow gun
| owner"), then yes, they'll probably want to avoid anyone
| wretched enough to advocate that.
|
| Short of that, it's NBD right? Not really comparable.
| ishouldbework wrote:
| > being told who they can marry
|
| I consider this somewhat unfortunate example, since we,
| as a society, are putting limits on this very thing. For
| example age, or species. How is that supposed to work if
| people are not allow to debate and express their opinions
| on where those limits are supposed to be?
|
| Similar with the health care. What is covered and what is
| not, and who has to pay and who has it (almost) free,
| should very much be up for a debate. Otherwise, how do
| you improve anything?
| marknutter wrote:
| It's absolutely comparable. They both involve limiting
| rights and freedoms.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| I think the salient meta-concept here is "Open source
| development is an inherently collaborative enterprise, and if
| people cannot collaborate, it stifles creation of open source
| projects and software."
|
| There may very well simply be political eras where the floor
| of trust isn't there for open source to spring forward by
| leaps and bounds.
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| Not everyone involved in open source has a boss. I don't care
| what a boss would hypothetically do to me, so that's not
| helpful guidance.
| nathanaldensr wrote:
| Completely agreed. Sorry, other folks, but you have no right to
| gatekeep my speech in any way in a professional context. Are
| you a family member? Then sure, we can have a discussion. Am I
| a member of your private club or otherwise dependent on your
| approval of my thoughts or beliefs? Then let's talk. Otherwise,
| leave me alone. You (the collective you) don't get to decide
| what I am and am not allowed to think and believe.
| giraffe_lady wrote:
| Nobody is constraining your beliefs or expressions of them.
| People are exercising their own individual right not to
| associate with people who express certain beliefs.
| marknutter wrote:
| Ah. So just good old fashioned bigotry.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| Generally, bigotry is bias based on immutable traits.
| Beliefs are not immutable.
| marknutter wrote:
| No, bigotry is bigotry, it doesn't matter what you're
| being bigoted about. But I could see why a bigot might
| say that.
| erxam wrote:
| Oh, of course.
|
| To a right-winger, safety is bigotry and hatred is love.
| Of course, how else could it ever be.
|
| Do you really care about freedom if you don't let white
| nationalists abuse everyone and everything in their power
| all the time?
| tensor wrote:
| I've been in the "keep work and politics" separate camp most of
| my life. However, with the lines that have been crossed
| recently, where literal democracy and freedom are at stake, I
| don't think people have the luxury of keeping work and politics
| separate any longer. Fascism is bad and people cannot be
| silent.
| marknutter wrote:
| If you invoke the word "fascism" in the context of today's
| politics, your opinion is immediately worthless.
| jaredcwhite wrote:
| If you say something like "if you invoke the word "fascism"
| in the context of today's politics, your opinion is
| immediately worthless", your opinion is immediately
| worthless.
| halicarnassus wrote:
| Great move to counter the hostile takeover of the RubyGems GitHub
| repo (not the rubygems.org repo) and organization by Ruby
| Central.
|
| I hope they find financing to cover hosting costs.
| joeldrapper wrote:
| I believe the hosting is already covered.
| mijoharas wrote:
| Is there anything more you can share about that? I guess I
| should just sign up to the newsletter and wait and find
| out...
| SSLy wrote:
| flagged??
| milliams wrote:
| Based on the comments getting downvoted, it feels like some
| brigading going on.
| joeldrapper wrote:
| Why has this been flagged?
| lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote:
| Just some background: there is a controversy in the Ruby
| community[0][2] around the governance of the rubygems project.
| It has been maintained for a long time by employees of Ruby
| Central but not in a corporate capacity. There was a recent
| hostile takeover of this project by the Ruby Central corporate
| arm.
|
| The most likely reason it was flagged from my perspective is
| that David Heinemeier Hansson (who created rails) is kind of
| the figurehead of this community and he has controversial
| opinions[1] which people believe make him unfit to represent
| their community. The controversy has manifested as people
| speaking out against DHH in his position. So this post seems to
| have been flagged for being "political" because it is seemingly
| in opposition to rubygems for the DHH reason.
|
| 0:
| https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=pastMonth&page=0&prefix=fa...
|
| 1: https://davidcel.is/articles/rails-needs-new-governance
| (this article has a lot of examples from DHH's blog)
|
| 2: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45348390
| ilikepi wrote:
| Er...FYI, your [2] link is to a discussion about an article
| written by the person to whom you are responding.
|
| Personally, I think the reason this post about gem.coop has
| been flagged is that we've reached the point at which new HN
| threads about things related to the recent RubyGems shake-up
| quickly devolve into people rehashing the DHH "aspect" of it
| all. So it has become less about flagging the actual target
| of the post and more about flagging the parts of the
| discussion that seem to go nowhere.
|
| EDIT: expanded
| lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote:
| That's fair enough, I didn't actually notice. Regardless, I
| was offering the information for other readers, which may
| or may not include the person I'm replying to.
|
| Edit:
|
| > flagging the parts of the discussion that seem to go
| nowhere
|
| This is and isn't what actually happens, though. People do
| flag the parts of the discussion that don't go anywhere but
| then people also flag the post itself because they think
| there's no reason to discuss it at all for the fact there's
| a vocal part (minority or majority doesn't really matter)
| that wants to discuss a topic that's not going anywhere.
|
| People shouldn't flag the post itself just because it's
| likely to gather or even has gathered a crowd that will
| discuss such directionless topics when there are better
| topics to discuss, even (especially?) if they're not
| currently being discussed.
| veeti wrote:
| Remove flags 2025, all the best stuff is in
| https://news.ycombinator.com/active. I don't even use Ruby
| right now, have no dog in whatever drama is behind this, but I
| don't see what's so offensive about knowing Gem.coop is now a
| thing.
| sleight42 wrote:
| Why is this flagged? This is super relevant to HN!
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| Brigading
| captn3m0 wrote:
| +1.
| lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote:
| I wrote this comment with what I understand to be the relevant
| context: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45490531
| directionless wrote:
| Given some of the ways Andre Arko gets described (See
| https://justin.searls.co/posts/why-im-not-rushing-to-take-si...
| for a recent overview) I'm a little wary of what the motivation
| behind this is.
| kimos wrote:
| This reads like a hit piece based on a personal vendetta. I'd
| be careful how much weight to give this.
| nomdep wrote:
| > When Ruby Together first launched in 2015, the website
| suggested donations went to pay "our team" (...) This
| resulted in a nonzero number of donors believing they were
| funding the work of people like Steve Klabnik, Aaron
| Patterson, and Sarah Mei, when in fact only Andre was being
| paid at the time.
|
| This a fact. By this alone I don't think Andre Arko is an
| honest person.
| steveklabnik wrote:
| Back in the day, nobody ever had said to me that they
| believed I was earning money from Ruby Together. This whole
| thing was speculation at best. And regardless, once it was
| suggested that this may be a possibility, it was
| immediately changed to be unambiguous.
|
| Andre is absolutely a standup individual.
|
| I have tried to stay in good terms with the other people
| involved in this (except DHH), but this claim was always
| ridiculous.
| nomdep wrote:
| I was misremembering it. Now that I've checked, it's
| clear that the claim was that the money was for paying
| "the team" [1], which consisted of Andre Arko and David
| Radcliffe [2]
|
| [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20150919025358/https://ru
| bytoget...
|
| [2] https://web.archive.org/web/20150919025603/https://ru
| bytoget...
| steveklabnik wrote:
| It's all good, you were quoting the blog post.
|
| Frankly that page is even more clear than I remembered.
| All of this happened so long ago.
| knowitnone3 wrote:
| I just want to know how much was David Radcliffe getting
| paid for his time?
| tenderlove wrote:
| This absolutely happened and is not speculation. I can't
| find the emails from the individuals that emailed me, but
| I did find my email to the board of directors asking that
| the website language be changed because people had pinged
| me thinking I would be getting money, or that the money
| would go to fund rubygems.org.
|
| At the time I'd sent the email I was unaware Ruby
| Together was on HN front page (and that's why people were
| pinging me)
| steveklabnik wrote:
| Okay, if you got emails, you got emails, but I did not.
|
| I absolutely wouldn't want people to think that I'd be
| getting the money, so I think clarifying it was a good
| thing, regardless.
| directionless wrote:
| TBH the whole thing is pretty opaque. There are a lot of
| accusations floating around. It's pretty easily to capitalize
| on "Big evil shopify is making a takeover", but I suspect
| there's a lot more happening behind the scenes.
| busterarm wrote:
| To take the maximally negative view of things:
| - uv is a cool tool, but Astral has signaled their intention to
| have it tie in nicely to paid services. - that's a nice
| moat! - Andre & friends saw that in the Python
| community (and uv's success) and decided they could do the same
| for Ruby - Their collective announces rv and now wants
| to make us dependent on them & friends for Ruby Gems. -
| After Hashicorp and others, I'm extremely wary of orgs luring
| me in with free shit. Hashicorp is maybe the lightest example
| of this but they're very intentional about enterprise-walling
| business-essential features. - I don't want the Ruby
| ecosystem dependent on one party or even a tiny collective of
| people. This is just as bad to me as the Ruby Central
| situation right now.
| davidcelis wrote:
| By "Astral" do you mean "Spinel"? Also, what paid services?
| So far the only paid services they've mentioned is retainer
| services that essentially amount to priority customer
| support. The tools themselves are only ever described as free
|
| EDIT: Misread the comment and thought it was only about `rv`,
| not both `uv` and `rv`
| levicole wrote:
| "If it's free, you're the product"
| pityJuke wrote:
| What is Spinel? Astral is the developer of uv, and they
| have announced their hosted platform service, pyx [0]. It
| appears it will be FOSS as well, but they'll have a hosted
| version of it.
|
| [0]: https://astral.sh/blog/introducing-pyx
| riffraff wrote:
| spinel is the company spun up around rv, ruby's uv
| version.
|
| https://spinel.coop/
| davidcelis wrote:
| My mistake, I completely misread your comment and thought
| you were _only_ talking about `rv` as opposed to both
| `uv` and `rv`!
| ljm wrote:
| The Ruby ecosystem is already decentralised in that there is
| no single source of truth for published gems. You can pull
| the source from any software forge that uses git, you can
| point to any self hosted gem server or use something like
| Artifactory or GitHub package registry. You can vendor the
| code if you want.
|
| This entire post is practically the case in point, except I'm
| not clear on how they got real time sync with RubyGems and if
| any other competitor would have the same capability.
|
| To use Astral and uv as an example, they would have to fork
| PyPI and maintain all the infra for that and not just the
| tool that manages the dependencies.
| mijoharas wrote:
| So, ignoring everything that got us here, what do people think
| about this?
|
| As I see it, there is the original rubygems, which has lost all
| of it's maintainers, and this new one, that has most of the
| original active maintainers? (how many were there before? it has
| most of the ones I think about, but I didn't know who was active
| over there. I mostly saw activity from deivid and didn't know
| about most of the others to be honest).
|
| It kind feels like this fork is the better maintained piece of
| software now.
|
| Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Are any people thinking of
| moving over soon?
|
| Is there any information on what the funding model will be? Also
| @joeldrapper/anyone is there anything you can share about how the
| hosting is being covered?[0]
|
| [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45490386
| mijoharas wrote:
| re: funding model, looks like it's TBD[0]
|
| [0] https://bsky.app/profile/indirect.io/post/3m2j2pcinz22j
| phoronixrly wrote:
| I don't plan on switching to a rubygems fork that does not
| offer technical/security benefits over the original.
|
| They can win me over with a gem distribution site that requires
| code signing out of the box and a bundler that enforces it out
| of the box.
| mijoharas wrote:
| For me, having the software be maintained (and have a
| security engineer working on it) feels like a security
| benefit.
|
| Does the original have many maintainers left?
| phoronixrly wrote:
| It has allegedly been taken over by Shopify. I expect it to
| be very well maintained. The issues are of ethical
| character.
| mperham wrote:
| Well maintained? Rubygems has had no commits in the last
| 10 days and that's not a good sign. I don't think you can
| find a window with no commits for 10 days in its 15+ year
| history.
|
| History has shown over and over that when a for-profit
| org takes over public infrastructure, maintenance is cut
| to the bone.
| gkbrk wrote:
| > Rubygems has had no commits in the last 10 days and
| that's not a good sign.
|
| I honestly can't tell if this is satire.
|
| You think no commits for 10 days for a piece of software
| that has existed for around 20 years is a sign that it's
| dead?
|
| What kind of code churn do you think this project
| requires? Perhaps the old development was too unstable if
| there wasn't a single 10 day window without a commit in
| 15 years, for what is essentially a solved problem and a
| tool that people depend on to be stable.
| joeldrapper wrote:
| I expect a lot of people will stop pushing gem updates to
| `rubygems.org` once `gem.coop` supports publishing directly
| to namespaces.
| soraminazuki wrote:
| Which part of a project that kicked out its original
| maintainers still feels "original" to you? At this point,
| rubygems.org is the fork.
|
| Oh, how times have changed. If Oracle were to close source
| OpenSolaris today, many here would likely rally behind it,
| especially if Larry Ellison appeared to align with the right.
| Submissions about Illumos would have been heavily flagged,
| much like this one has been for a while.
| jaredcwhite wrote:
| Excellent point, I can't help but feel gem.coop is
| essentially Ruby Together 2.0 which reinforces my opinion
| that the merger of RT with RC was a huge mistake. (It
| certainly made sense at the time...hindsight is always
| 20/20...etc....but still.)
| sussmannbaka wrote:
| They had a minor security incident right off the bat,
| demonstrating they don't even fully understand what they
| stole. They aren't equipped to do the job.
| baggy_trough wrote:
| I personally cannot think of a new ruby gems or bundler feature
| from the past decade that I noticed or cared about. That isn't
| to say that there aren't any; I just don't know what they are.
| frenkel wrote:
| Lockfile checksums are quite new and useful.
| mijoharas wrote:
| I think I basically agree with this, but my thoughts are more
| on which org is better placed now to respond to things like
| the recent supply chain attacks (ref for the specific recent
| ruby one[0][1]).
|
| I'm unsure on who is better placed to handle that stuff now.
| My view is that the people that were doing that are now with
| gem.coop, but rubygems still has the infra (i.e. you'd email
| security@rubygems.org still for now).
|
| I'm unsure about what to think about longer term (my personal
| approach is currently "wait and see").
|
| Similarly, I'm perfectly happy with bundler for now, but if
| `rv` turns out to be like `uv`, I'd happily switch (drop-in
| replacement, but faster/some better features).
|
| [0] https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/60-malicio
| us-...
|
| [1] https://blog.rubygems.org/2025/08/08/malicious-gems-
| removal....
| knowitnone3 wrote:
| Socket.dev states "Since at least March 2023". RubyGems
| says "Our team first detected this activity on July 20th".
| This attack has ran for almost 5 months undetected. I
| wouldn't feel reassured at all.
| ilikepi wrote:
| There have been several releases with incremental but still
| notable performance improvements. The overall cadence has
| been pretty steady, intentionally targeting roughly one minor
| release per year since 2019-ish, with handfuls of quality of
| life improvements in each. Arguably RubyGems and Bundler are
| infrastructure, so the major feature is stability. What sort
| of big feature are you imagining is missing from your
| dependency management system?
| x0x0 wrote:
| Andre is working on a combination of rbenv/asdf, bundler,
| and gem that I think is interesting. Not that they're
| wildly broken, but I'd rather have fewer tools and it
| always seemed a bit odd that they're separate when they're
| notionally managing the environment in which your ruby code
| executes.
|
| Given the rise in supply chain attacks, I'd also like a
| private rubygem instance where I can whitelist gems and
| even versions for my company in a way that doesn't let
| anything else install. I'm not sure if they're taking that
| on or not, but I'd like it.
|
| the rv thesis is here:
| https://andre.arko.net/2025/08/25/rv-a-new-kind-of-ruby-
| mana...
| riffraff wrote:
| > I'd also like a private rubygem instance
|
| that was always possible https://guides.rubygems.org/run-
| your-own-gem-server/
|
| (there's also "gem server")
| baggy_trough wrote:
| That's basically my point. I'm not missing anything, so I'm
| happy if it just gets small / stability fixes, which
| doesn't seem like it needs a six member maintainer group.
| That team should go off and do a great job with 'rv' or
| whatever the next brand new idea is, and just let rubygems
| sit there with minor updates, same as we do for the ruby
| logger or date class.
| ilvez wrote:
| They made bundler output compact, previously it spammed all
| installed versions and updates mixed, now you can see just
| updates if you do those for example.. or quite concise "all
| OK" if everything is as it should be. Small but really nice
| quality of life change imo
| shadowgovt wrote:
| I think right off the bat since they chose .coop as their TLD,
| a lot of corporate firewalls auto-block them and they have
| immediately decided to fight an uphill battle to get allow-
| listed to be a gem repo.
|
| This does not bode well for the team having the socio-technical
| savviness to see this project through.
| w0m wrote:
| seems like an easy fix in a month with a new TLD though.
| spit2wind wrote:
| Really? Maybe I'm naive, but why would .coop be blocked?
| lbhdc wrote:
| It is pretty common that "weird" tlds get blocked more or
| less whole sale in places you might not expect.
|
| The reason is spam. Before these can get wide spread
| "normal" adoption they can be heavily used by spammers. Its
| hard to say if that is because they have desirable look-a-
| likes available, or if its because the first year is
| offered at a deep discount. So, systems will get flooded,
| and on inspection they will see that they don't have any
| legit traffic from those tlds and will whole sale block
| them.
|
| .xyz is kind of infamous for being in this situation.
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28554400
|
| I have no idea if that applies to .coop though.
| hombre_fatal wrote:
| How will anything ever change we're still guilted into
| thinking about crappy default corporate firewalls when
| choosing a TLD?
|
| Though there's no way that this is something you care about,
| cmon.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| Most places seem to manage.
|
| But thinking that they can disregard all prior Internet
| history and just slam into the situation with no concern
| about what came before is pretty on-brand for a project in
| the Ruby ecosystem.
| florkbork wrote:
| Ah yes, "slam in" to a situation is definitely the
| correct terminology for forking a project that was seized
| from you by a hostile party.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| I mean regarding the choice of TLD. Forking the package
| repository ecosystem I fully understand the incentives;
| it just strikes me as a very Ruby-ecosystem thing to just
| assume that `.coop` is a good enough TLD with no
| consequences for using it relative to choosing to use
| .org, .com, or .net.
| nomdep wrote:
| >It kind of feels like this fork is the better-maintained piece
| of software now.
|
| Maybe, but I feel the value of the index is the storage and
| bandwidth and not the software itself, isn't it?
|
| Could an index work by just being a search engine for gems,
| storing the hashes, but pointing to external resources, like
| GitHub repos, for the download itself?
| soraminazuki wrote:
| Trustworthiness is far more important for a package manager.
| No amount of storage or bandwidth can compensate for an
| untrustworthy package manager.
| stanislavb wrote:
| With this is in place. A ".coop" domain does not signal
| trustworthiness. It's more like a childish revenge attempt.
| Don't get me wrong. I think it's a great idea for the
| original maintainers to begin work on a form. However, they
| could have chosen a better domain name.
| mijoharas wrote:
| I saw someone else saying something about the domain
| name, but I didn't really give it a second thought when I
| read it.
|
| Can you explain what the issue is?
| seanw444 wrote:
| I'd only say it's a real issue if this were a "normie-
| facing" website. But being a developer tool, we all know
| that there are legitimate domains other than .com, .org,
| and .net.
| soraminazuki wrote:
| What? Which part of the word "co-op" sounds like a
| "childish revenge attempt"?
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative
|
| It's a word that nicely captures their objectives.
| lawilli wrote:
| Maybe they read it like "coup"?
| florkbork wrote:
| Read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.coop
|
| Think about all of the organisational structures you know
| of.
|
| Then ask yourself how is a cooperative fundamentally
| untrustworthy?
| hatthew wrote:
| My first-order heuristic is that legitimate websites tend
| to get one of the top TLDs (.com/.org, maybe .net/.io).
| In general, why should I trust domain_name.xyz over
| domain_name.com? There are obvious caveats, e.g. it
| doesn't matter as much for generic words like "gem" and
| for personal sites that I don't trust much in the first
| place. In this case, 3 seconds of critical thinking makes
| it clear that they have a plausible reason for choosing
| .coop. But given that much of this controversy is
| premised on toolchain trust, there's plenty of other
| domains that seem even more trustworthy to me at first
| glance, e.g. gem-lib.org, gemcoop.org, stuff like that.
|
| Again, a domain name is pretty minor in the scope of this
| whole fiasco, and I wouldn't have bothered with bringing
| up this point, but on balance I agree with it.
| JimmaDaRustla wrote:
| > It's more like a childish revenge attempt.
|
| Gaslight much? "coop" implies intention and
| direction...you know, that thing that rubygems.org could
| have used?
| skywhopper wrote:
| Coop as in co-op, as in "co-operative".
| mijoharas wrote:
| Isn't that how golang works?
|
| I remember some complaints about the traffic that it
| produced[0] (though I don't think it's a bad idea. Basically
| federated downloads).
|
| [0] https://sourcehut.org/blog/2023-01-09-gomodulemirror/
| Imustaskforhelp wrote:
| Combining this with something like tangled.sh/bluesky's AT
| protocol or what forejo is working on in their activitypub
| federation integration can actually make it genuinely
| federated as well
|
| Or maybe radicle as well if someone is okay with swapping
| in a custom software but the hiccups can be too much imo so
| tangled.sh is the most interesting thing to me right now
|
| What is stopping something like gem.coop to exist with the
| at protocol/tangled.sh??
| x3n0ph3n3 wrote:
| I'm starkly opposed to this ridiculous fragmenting of the
| community. They can and should all go work out contribution
| agreements with RubyCentral and get over their egos.
| davidcelis wrote:
| What makes you think they _haven't_ tried to work things out
| with Ruby Central? As per a separate article[1], this seems
| to be a last resort:
|
| > "Since Ruby Central has informed us they will never allow
| us to continue working on the projects they now claim they
| own, that we successfully maintained and operated for the
| last ten years, the former RubyGems team is launching
| gem.coop today."
|
| [1]: https://socket.dev/blog/gem-cooperative-emerges-as-a-
| communi...
| x3n0ph3n3 wrote:
| I suspect many of these maintainers are making absurd
| ultimatums of RubyCentral.
| mijoharas wrote:
| That's a strange suspicion. Why?
| x3n0ph3n3 wrote:
| Because many mass-resigned unless Andre was re-instated.
| mijoharas wrote:
| I think many mass resigned when their commit access was
| taken away from their own project by a company that
| doesn't have a right to do that.
|
| Some people might consider that a dick move.
| ljm wrote:
| The main page itself provides little to no info so I'm going to
| make a few assumptions that, to me, seem logical:
|
| 1. It must depend on RubyGems in order to stay in sync, because
| people publish to RubyGems.
|
| 2. It has no UI to search or view gems, so still depends on
| RubyGems for that.
|
| Ignoring any question about technical detail or implementation:
| there is zero practical reason or motivation to switch unless I
| am ideologically aligned with the maintainers and their
| reasoning.
|
| As such, there is zero reason to even entertain the idea of
| switching in a professional context. At best I'd have to care
| enough to remember it for personal projects.
|
| So it is with almost any fork. It'll either converge with the
| mainline after achieving its goals, take over as the new status
| quo, or fade into obscurity. If I don't have any direct stake
| in that then I'm going to wait it out.
|
| This isn't to discredit or discount the work or the reasoning,
| of course. It arguably has a far better standing than forking
| Rails because of DHH.
| daitangio wrote:
| True, but this is a new beginning.Give time and credit to
| build an alternative. I think another repo server will not
| harm anyone in the long run
| dmix wrote:
| So why are we being asked to have opinions on it?
|
| rubygems works perfectly fine, if they end up having
| maintenance or logistically issues as a result of their
| changes then people may consider an alternative.
|
| Otherwise this is mostly just hopes and dreams for a major
| endeavor that'd probably take at least half a decade for
| people to switch over - once there is real incentives.
| realty_geek wrote:
| Flagging this post is quite disturbing.
|
| There is a conversation around this which needs to be had. Maybe
| on bsky or x?
|
| https://x.com/africajam/status/1975206106738901110
|
| https://bsky.app/profile/indirect.io/post/3m2iq5p7eoc2j
| sandstrom wrote:
| I understand forking is sometimes needed, but it's also somewhat
| discouraging to see that the differences couldn't be reconciled.
|
| As long as people are aligned on advancing the Ruby ecosystem, I
| think it should be possible to cooperate even if there are
| disagreement in other areas [which political party you support,
| differences in personal opinions, etc].
|
| Maybe it'll be resolved eventually, just like Merb <> Rails,
| Bundler <> RubyGems and RubyTogether <> RubyCentral were
| eventually merged. That's what I'm hoping for!
| thomascountz wrote:
| If we isolate this from the recent controversy: in general, is an
| alternative (yet mostly compatible) package source, package
| manager, and/or language version manager neutral, good, or bad
| for an open source ecosystem?
| MrDarcy wrote:
| Mostly good. Monopolies stagnate. Competition helps drive
| innovation.
|
| In open source too.
| soraminazuki wrote:
| So RubyGems has betrayed its community by ousting its
| maintainers. When a community-focused alternative created by the
| original maintainers is announced, it gets flagged on HN. What is
| wrong with people?
|
| This situation is eerily similar to the Freenode takeover[1] and
| the subsequent formation of Libera Chat[2] a few years ago, even
| down to the political leanings of those behind the takeover.
| Except if the Freenode incident occurred today, there would be a
| vocal portion on HN vehemently siding with Freenode solely based
| on the perceived political affiliations of its owners.
| Submissions about Libera Chat would face heavy flagging, much
| like this one has.
|
| It seems the Freenode team may have advanced their plans just a
| bit too early.
|
| [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27286628
|
| [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27207734
| sosodev wrote:
| Flagging is definitely getting abused more on HN lately. The
| consensus seems to be that politics and/or morals are
| irrelevant outside of personal affairs so we must not have
| these conversations here.
| soraminazuki wrote:
| Which is absurd because the hostile takeover of RubyGems
| primarily involves technology, with serious implications for
| the security and trust of nearly all Ruby code. Those
| flagging this submission are the ones prioritizing politics
| over this critical issue.
| busterarm wrote:
| Politically-charged ultimatums _caused_ the hostile
| takeover of RubyGems. This whole thing is politics all the
| way down.
| soraminazuki wrote:
| Someone withdrawing funding from Ruby Central doesn't
| necessitate a hostile takeover of RubyGems. The
| responsibility lies squarely on people doing the
| takeover. Needless to say, you haven't shown me any
| convincing arguments for suppressing the announcement of
| gem.coop.
| shevy-java wrote:
| I could be wrong but it may be that some have an additional
| agenda to try to make e. g. competition to Ruby Central fail.
| You can see this on ruby-reddit, e. g. by u/f9ae8221b - either
| way I think the by far best strategy for gem.coop is to address
| all concerns and statements made, including the wrong ones.
| Simply be better than rubygems.org - everywhere. (Also,
| u/f9ae8221b is super-impatient; why can't he wait for a while?
| Rome was not built in a day, it is strange how he thinks to
| know the future. I don't know the future - let's wait and see.
| In the worst case gem.coop will fail; in the best case it'll
| fix numerous issues, including, by the way, gem/bundler not
| having had the same functionality. And namespacing too; and
| inactive accounts, and so on, and so forth. There is a ton of
| things to do.)
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| Important move to maintain a free community. I'm switching over
| to Gem.coop now.
| salzig wrote:
| Just a thought of mine: why don't we switch fully to git? Commit
| signing, tag signing, Decentralize. Doesn't that sound like a
| good alternativ?
| zdragnar wrote:
| Someone has to run the git server. Then, someone has to find
| the git server to pull each gem from, since not every git
| server is likely to be up-to-date with the each gem, or the
| correct version. Since these are all decentralized, each
| individual owner of a git server has to independently scale as
| more people start using each one.
|
| The benefit to being centralized is... everything is in one
| place. Everything scales at once. Every update is available at
| the same time.
|
| We did this back in the day using artifactory and co. to proxy
| NPM and a few other package managers as well as docker
| containers and some other things. No third party service going
| down could keep us from deploying.
|
| Not everyone does it because as a solo developer or a small
| team, as it feels like pointless overhead.
| pornel wrote:
| The git protocol is more complex and harder to scale. It's
| especially wasteful if people are going to redownload all
| packages every time their amnesiac CI runs.
|
| Single-file archives are much easier to distribute.
|
| Digests and signatures have standard algorithms, not unique to
| git. Key/identity management is the hard part, but git doesn't
| solve it for you (if you don't confuse git with GitHub).
| webstrand wrote:
| git bundles exist to solve the single-file caching and
| distribution problems
| pdntspa wrote:
| Is this not an overreaction to the rubygems rubycentral fiasco?
| florkbork wrote:
| No.
|
| Imagine if someone came into your house and changed all of the
| locks on you/your family, because "security". You had built
| that house from your original designs but the other party
| claims they own it now because they happen to manage a series
| of rental listings for houses built to your design. You had
| even made it so the plans could be copied and modified in
| private; if "security" were a real concern with about 10
| minutes effort to do so.
|
| Would you agree that it is right, do nothing? Or would you
| rebuild something new, given how little time it takes to copy
| the plans.
|
| Swap "house design" for "software project" and "rental
| listings" for "running an instance of your software project"
| and you have the current situation.
|
| Developers are free to choose the party they trust more.
| sergiotapia wrote:
| Is this political or does it have actual technical merit?
| CaptainOfCoit wrote:
| The best "technical" benefit from this is that if one goes
| down, you could switch to the other in a pinch, so arguably
| better than the status quo even if you disagree with the
| organizational/"political" motives.
| NARKOZ wrote:
| FYI, this is Ruby Central's response:
| https://rubycentral.org/news/our-stewardship-where-we-are-wh...
| steveklabnik wrote:
| This cannot be a response, as it was posted days before this
| was released.
| dubbel wrote:
| The response you link to was published on September 30, 2025,
| so it's not the response to gem.coop? I'd say gem.coop is the
| response to Ruby Central's actions?
| poorman wrote:
| Here's the thing. They could have put up link to a git repository
| where others can follow along with the maintenance of this
| project, but here isn't one. There is a list of maintainers
| explicitly mentioned on this page but no link to the git
| repository. This leads me to think this project is not about the
| code but about the people.
| steveklabnik wrote:
| Source lives here: https://github.com/gem-coop
| byroot wrote:
| The only public repo is a static website.
| steveklabnik wrote:
| Ah! Good catch. I saw the repo exists but didn't dig into
| the contents, given that it's (as far as I know) purely a
| proxy for rubygems at the moment, I figured it would be
| pretty simple.
|
| I agree they should post the whole source, regardless.
| soraminazuki wrote:
| It's a package repository. A link to an Ansible repository or
| whatever doesn't need to be in the first announcement.
|
| > This leads me to think this project is not about the code but
| about the people.
|
| Trust is of utmost importance to a package repository. Even
| more so than code. A hostile takeover, like the one that
| occurred with RubyGems, fundamentally undermines that trust. In
| contrast, an alternative run by the original maintainers who
| have built years of trust, represents a positive shift.
|
| Unfortunately, it seems that your conclusion was drawn before
| your justifications. When you invent justification though, at
| least make sure you don't undermine your own position. Where's
| the prominent link to the Git repo on rubygems.org top page?
|
| https://web.archive.org/web/20251003112525/https://rubygems....
| eek2121 wrote:
| I think the issue that you overlook is that you assume this
| group of individuals is trustworthy.
|
| I'm not saying they aren't, but there are a LOT of
| conflicting opinions about what happened, why it happened,
| and who was right/wrong.
|
| This it what tends to happen when money gets involved in a
| project without a clear structure/business plan/guarantees
| put in place. People just did whatever and made assumptions,
| and now suddenly the whole community is rocking and rolling
| thanks to the actions/view points of a select few.
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| A brief announcement post:
| https://andre.arko.net/2025/10/05/announcing-gem-coop/
| varispeed wrote:
| > initially his own, but eventually others--by paying themselves
| a market hourly rate
|
| This is massively flawed thinking. So called "market rate" is
| actually a tool for value extraction from the workers and is not
| connected in any shape or form with what they create for company
| they work at. As corporations refer to this as if it was a
| consensus (as in developer should earn $x an hour), they pay this
| much and workers have no choice but to accept (if someone has
| working class background and no trust fund, it is rather
| impossible to throw the towel and start own business, sometimes
| there are even regulations designed to keep workers captive).
|
| In such a project, "founder level" people should pay themselves
| as much as they think their worth is. Simple as that.
|
| I often hear VC talking that if founder takes too much money,
| it's a bad look. They just want to shame people into not taking
| the slice they deserve.
|
| It's interesting that IT is full of intelligent people, yet they
| can't grasp how they are being played by the market frames set by
| the rich.
| eek2121 wrote:
| hard disagree. For a project like this, all members should be
| paid a fair, but not "get rich" sum. There are companies out
| there that pay EVERYONE the same salary, all the way from CEO
| to janitor. Mysteriously, those companies don't have folks
| trying to hijack things, because nobody benefits.
|
| It's almost like removing money from the equation stops all the
| nasty stuff that happens inside organizations. Who'd have
| thought?
| eek2121 wrote:
| I feel like a change to the way gems are distributed/downloaded
| could fix this. Unfortunately, the very powers that could make
| that happen are the powers that control the software and
| infrastructure, and have the least incentive to improve things.
|
| I honestly find it ridiculous that this situation happened to
| begin with, and I also have no clue why people are hating on DHH.
|
| The easiest way to kill an open source project is drama and
| forking like this. Ruby has been around forever, obviously,
| however it is far from the most used languages, and drama like
| this just hurts the ecosystem as a whole.
|
| As a former Ruby dev, it makes me sad.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-10-06 23:00 UTC)