rfittich

Appreciate the reply, but your justification doesn't really sit right. When you start a project with the intent to make it open source, you architect it that way from the outset. Using proprietary tools like Firebase as a crutch to expedite your initial dev load seems like a short-sighted decision at best that inevitably leads to the kind of predicament you're facing now.

The intention to "remove all non-open source services" sounds like lots retrofitting and will likely introduce unnecessary instability and tech debt. It's almost like building a house, then deciding to replace the foundation while still expecting people to live in it.

Your statement about wanting your code to "be audited by everyone and evolve around community feedback" feels like a euphemism for offloading QA responsibility to your users. An open-source community is not your unpaid labor force.

All in all your justification doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

Besides, seeing these overtly positive and eerily similar comments popping up around your post is a bit too convenient. It's almost as if you've rallied a small army of supporters ready to sing your praises. But even if that were true, I'd like to remind you that astroturfing isn't a sustainable growth strategy, nor is it a decent substitute for genuine community engagement and a quality product.

But then again, if you're already comfortable with retroactively stripping non-open-source services out of your product, who's to say you wouldn't resort to a bit of artificial comment cultivation to make the grass look greener? It kind of feels like your project is less about 'open source' and more about 'being open to whatever tactics necessary to look successful.'

In the end, remember this: Even a thousand echoes can't make a single voice sound any more convincing. The value of your product will be judged by its actual usefulness to users, not by the number of friends you can enlist to say nice things about it.

Just food for thought.

Ah, the classic "open source soon" promise. Nothing quite says "we're unsure about our business model" like a promise to open source in the future. You either have the conviction and commitment to be open source from the outset, or you don't. Promising to open source "soon" is akin to companies that announce a pivot before they've fully understood the implications of the move.

Moreover, the fact that you've conveniently launched on Product Hunt today raises my eyebrows. It feels like a calculated marketing stunt, rather than a genuine desire to contribute to the development community.

I think this perspective is essential in our ever-evolving tech industry. Bash, despite its quirks and often steep learning curve, has its niche in our toolset.

Its power lies in its simplicity and direct access to system level functions, which makes it an efficient tool for system administrators and developers working in DevOps. It's excellent for automating small to medium-sized tasks on UNIX-like systems where the overhead of a full-fledged language would be overkill.

While it's true that bash has its limitations, the value of its ubiquity cannot be overstated. The bash shell is everywhere - from massive server clusters to tiny embedded systems. This means that a bash script written on one system is very likely to work unchanged on another.

This is a fascinating read. However, the disparity in cost is not that surprising when you consider the factors contributing to it.

Very well explained. Kudos!