Hacker News Reader

Comment by hxegon | Hacker News Reader

A lot of the new tooling is in Go, superfile included. Noticed this after I started using LazyGit (incredible tool btw, I can't go back to anything else even after being a die hard Magit user for years)

There's some stellar libraries in Go for terminal stuff, in particular anything from charmcli. They have an elm style TUI framework called bubbletea (which superfile uses), a styling library, prebuilt components, it's really incredible. I'm building a multiplayer tetris you can play through ssh, which is using bubbletea and another lib of theirs called wish.

they have a lot of stuff you can just use in regular shell stuff too: https://charm.sh

View on HN

They are VC backed now which makes me wonder if they will do a license switch later or something else to monetize...

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38126060

I don't know about Charm so maybe someone can check their Github, but there's a dark pattern where you market yourself as open source but not all your components are actually released to the public, so you have a nice GitHub icon on your front page that just leads to silly minor extensions but not the main software. ObsidianMD does it.

Where does Obsidian claim they’re open source? Where have they ever done that? And no, having a GitHub icon does not magically announce to the world “we are open source”.

In fact, their license page makes it abundantly clear they are not open source:

> We own and reserve rights to our content, including text, images, and code in the app, which is protected by copyright and other laws.

https://obsidian.md/license

I get this argument if a company or product claimed it was open source and it wasn’t, but it just doesn’t work if the product in question makes it quite clear they are not, or even leaves it ambiguous.

It may not be Obsidian's fault, but I know people who were indeed surprised. And are you suggesting that people normally click the license page?

So if they at no point claim they’re open source… what, exactly, is your critique of them? That they built a product that is so good it could conceivably be open source but isn’t?

> And are you suggesting that people normally click the license page?

As my comment says, I am suggesting that they explicitly say they are not open source. It’s not like that’s featured front and center on literally any other product’s front page, so I’m not sure what exactly your expectations are here. Do you want them to have in 100pt font “WE ARE CLOSED SOURCE!!!” plastered across every page? Would that be enough?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com