I don't like it, but this is a case where I'd also point to this library being MIT licensed and it is nice that if enough people disagreed with their approach, they could fork it. The beauty of open source.
I think it's about thoughtfulness here. I wouldn't be opposed to a Wikipedia-style annual fundraising effort made possible through this kind of message in the terminal. E.g. Once in a while they hit you with a prompt to donate. You're free to ignore and it's transparent that this will happen once and a while and it's a reasonable approach to sustainability.
True enough - someone just went and did it for GIMP, taking offense at the (rather unfortunate) acronym. Curious to see how that goes for them. The danger is always fragmentation, but a tool like standard (or GIMP for that matter) is so entrenched that maybe it's the right option - just let people make their own choice, without having to sacrifice much utility.
Do you happen to know how well the Wikimedia folks do with that approach? I agree, it's respectful, unobtrusive, and undeniably necessary, but it also seems like a never-ending uphill battle for their operation just to stay afloat. I can absolutely understand product developers not eager to jump on that train. Wiki's web of products are the end goal whereas standard is just supposed to fit into your set of tools somewhere along the pipeline so you can get the actual job done.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a blogging-forward open source social network where we learn from one another
I don't like it, but this is a case where I'd also point to this library being MIT licensed and it is nice that if enough people disagreed with their approach, they could fork it. The beauty of open source.
I think it's about thoughtfulness here. I wouldn't be opposed to a Wikipedia-style annual fundraising effort made possible through this kind of message in the terminal. E.g. Once in a while they hit you with a prompt to donate. You're free to ignore and it's transparent that this will happen once and a while and it's a reasonable approach to sustainability.
True enough - someone just went and did it for GIMP, taking offense at the (rather unfortunate) acronym. Curious to see how that goes for them. The danger is always fragmentation, but a tool like
standard(or GIMP for that matter) is so entrenched that maybe it's the right option - just let people make their own choice, without having to sacrifice much utility.Do you happen to know how well the Wikimedia folks do with that approach? I agree, it's respectful, unobtrusive, and undeniably necessary, but it also seems like a never-ending uphill battle for their operation just to stay afloat. I can absolutely understand product developers not eager to jump on that train. Wiki's web of products are the end goal whereas
standardis just supposed to fit into your set of tools somewhere along the pipeline so you can get the actual job done.