Very cute that there's a one click deployment using some semi-magic third party service, but it feels kinda disingenuous to not link to the repo that's doing the actual heavy lifting.[] The repo submitted to HN is just a bunch of config files.
The author of the repository seems to work for that third party service so feels more like a proof of concept for deployments to that service.
Also, because acknowledging the project you built on top off recursively references other tools, there is no need to publish the whole tree. That exploration is left as an exercise to the viewer of the repo.
And likewise, automatically distributing money per dependency will just make people split projects into multiple parts to get more of the money, or to add fake dependencies.
Donations need humans in the loop to decide where the money should go.
The automatic parts can consist of listing candidates, link to their contributions and handling of the transactions, not selection.
People do stupid shit for fake internet points and fame already, I wouldn't put cash into that equation
The only thing they added was a dependency on a closed source 3rd party """cloud""" service. This is basically the open source equivalent to blog spam and should be rightfully put down.
And the post you're replying to isn't even trying to do that! Its just suggesting that hacker news would find more benefit out of the original repo over some closed source cloud bait made by an employee of said proprietary cloud service.
but im not doing that.
I'm going after open source projects that can make money (by building closed source infrastructure) taking other peoples open source projects and moneifying them into a new """open source""" project (where 99% of the meat is in closed source cloud infrastructure) as a way to piggy back off of the work of other people so that they can advertise on hacker news.
Like, if the repo actually added something substantial and new to the project, that would be one thing.
If this was an article that explained how to do the gluing/config work this github repo does, also, another thing. even if hosted/made by the cloud company. That at least appeals to the intellectual pursuit.
But this is just some config files.
As it stands, this is a submission of "a one click deployment of rpiplay to balenacloud" or something like that.
It’s all about setting expectations. I saw this title and was excited because I thought there might be a new airplay server available (airplay 2 even). Then I saw what the project really was and I was disappointed.
A lot of this comes down to the fact that software moves quickly and instructions are written for a given piece of hardware on a specific version of a distro.
One of the benefits of having a common platform like the Raspberry Pi or shipping Docker Images is that you can ship a MVP that anyone can easily setup like Hassio, Pi-Hole, or PiWebcam.
Are an open source license terms ignored here ?