- cross-posted to:
- opensource@programming.dev
- cross-posted to:
- opensource@programming.dev
This doesn’t surprise me at all… Just like bots in games. Selling a service that benefits another. Its shady, but definitely believable.
Also, what if this is an actual viable way to “market” for an open source project?
I am not a programmer. But I have been using github as an end user for years, downloading programs I like and whatnot. Today I realized there are stars on github. Literally never even noticed.
The stars are more important when you’re a developer. It indicates interest in the project, and when it’s a library you might want to use that translates into how well maintained it might be and what level of official and unofficial support you might get from it.
Other key things to look at are how often are they doing releases and committing changes, how long bugs are left open, if pull requests sit there forever without being merged in etc.
And if the developers were to give up on the project, how likely it would be for someone to fork it and continue.
Ya, that’s a really good point as well.
An experienced developer could easily step in. The hold back is getting compensated for the effort rather than being forced to turn tricks on the local street corner (aka work a job).
This is why devs are walking away.
Companies offering jobs to maintainers rather than directing funding at them is nonsense. Gov’ts and companies will wake up as cracks start snowballing in their tech stack.
If you’re trying to peddle malware then it’s a way to fake popularity
That’s unfair. Throwing out FUD doesn’t make it true.
Why be in a rush to judge? Might wanna watch some projects which have used this tactic.
Might be legitimate projects are willing to do whatever to attract eye balls.
Just for shiats and giggles, keep an open mind.
I was pointing out a use case
Yeah, this is a pretty good gauge of what an honest star rating should represent.