I'm not sure how to feel about this. It's kind of a fork, but it's really just another release of Owncast by somebody else. They're releasing something called Owncast with functionality and decisions that have nothing to do with the real Owncast. It specifically says stuff like "Owncast does X", and Owncast does not do X, and will never do X. Only their changes do X.
I fear this may confuse people. If something goes wrong with their version of the software, people are going to ask me for support, and might make the real Owncast look bad. But I don't know if this is wrong, or if this is completely acceptable. It's open source, and the name "Owncast" isn't owned by anybody, as Owncast is an open source project, not a company. So I guess they have the right to do whatever they want and call it Owncast.
But it feels wrong, and it seems like really bad things could come of this.
Embed this noticeGabe Kangas (gabek@social.gabekangas.com)'s status on Sunday, 31-Mar-2024 04:22:08 JST
Gabe KangasSaw there's a poll for "How often do you use Owncast?" In my mind, it's like asking, "How often do you use a concrete mixer?" Most people here would say "Never". But the people who need to build stuff really need a concrete mixer. If you compared a concrete mixer's popularity to an iPhone or a laptop, you'd say concrete mixers are a failure and nobody uses them. When, clearly, people use them every day to do important work.
That's how I feel when people try to gauge the "popularity" of Owncast.
And it turns out the only reason somebody wanted to help them was nefarious. I can’t imagine how they feel right now as everyone is blaming them. I hope they’re ok.
@evan@o_simardcasanova@thisismissem If a project is no longer very active, and you’re wondering what can be done to help it, then inconveniencing a maintainer who is not as active with PRs is the least of the concerns. The project needs people to work on it or it’s dead. The goal should be to build a core group of contributors, not have sporadic drive-by contributions. That way it’s not all on one person. Including the job of reviewing PRs.
@evan@o_simardcasanova@thisismissem I’m coming at this conversation from the bias of a sole maintainer of a project where I’m doing my best to keep my head above water. I would love have a core team so I don’t always feel so guilty that I’m not doing enough. PRs take time, but what a gift. I’m immensely thankful for every single one. But long term core team members would be better.
@evan@o_simardcasanova More contributors. If one person is working on something, and they slow down, nobody is allowed to complain if nobody is willing to help.
@evan The whole demeaning "It might seem incomprehensible to you, you just don't get it" with an immense sense of superiority. In this case, you're telling me I don't understand what ActivityPub is, and I'm too dumb to understand your question. I take offense to that. Not to you, but that's why I think you could reword what you're trying to say there.
@evan This question is impossible to answer. Benefit of the doubt... of what? If somebody messed up an implementation of ActivityPub, absolutely, they deserve it. We're all trying our best. If somebody built an implementation of ActivityPub to steal our data, advertise to us, harass people, or build spam bots? No absolutely not, we shouldn't let that slide just because they use ActivityPub.
You can’t appoint anybody as anything on The Fediverse. That’s what true decentralization and independence is. I know people incorrectly think Gargron is the president of The Fediverse, but it’s incorrect. Nobody owns The Fediverse, it’s impossible. If you can appoint a single person to oversee it, how can you pretend it’s anything decentralized, independent or open?