[RL_Quine]

> Upon successful submission of a package, the package maintainer will receive an NFT to evidence their work and contribution. The holder of this NFT will automatically receive all rewards associated with the package. Package maintainers may transfer maintenance ownership over a package to another package maintainer by simply transferring the package’s NFT. Successful transfer of the NFT will lead to the new owner automatically receiving future package rewards.

I want literally nothing to do with a cross between a binary distribution tool and a cryptocurrency pump and dump.

[mjburgess]

It doesnt seem we're far away from any mention of "cypto" being a reason to flag (/ report spam).

As the economic recession accelerates, one of its few joys will be the charlatans paying on super-easy-mode being exposed for the useless players they are.

I feel that the major cultish hype-cycle of the last decade is rolling back, and my stress levels are dropping.

[jrsj]

Many tech companies are both unprofitable and contribute near 0 value to society. Not unique to crypto. Be careful what you wish for, or the only people left paying software engineers might be non technical companies who pay $80k a year.

[jakelazaroff]

Love to irreversibly lose control of my packages because of a phishing scam or a buggy smart contract!

[qbasic_forever]

LMAO the supply chain attack potential is epic. Oopsie the author of leftpad clicked the wrong button and now an unknown entity owns their package and just updated it with malicious content!

[kergonath]

No such a thing as a buggy smart contract. The contract is right by definition, and that is what was agreed upon. Therefore, it’s the humans who signed it who are buggy. Or something.

I wish I was joking.

[drc500free]

How does creating this NFT cause it to have value, and therefore reward the package maintainer? If the issue is that no one is putting money into the system, the solution can't be a more complicated way of ensuring that the non-existent money goes to the right person.

[chopete3]

Isn't the email proof of ownership. Why do they need an NFT? The owner can change the email to another one when no longer wants to manage.

NFT seeems an overkill and author drank too much crypto-aid.

[politician]

Not everyone runs their own mail servers.

This is no different from requiring proof of identity using an SSH key like you do with GitHub.

[jerpint]

What makes you think this is a pump and dump scheme? Other than the word blockchain

[RL_Quine]

The website linked, and it's associated information all absolutely scream red flags and is functionally similar to a hoard of other schemes. It's a technically simple product (distribute binaries from a webserver) with a completely arbitrary cryptocurrency stuffed onto the side, allowing for bombastic, buzzword filled claims which just defy reality. It attempts to promote itself by driving users who will get some form of profit sharing as part of their participation, promising some sort of rewards paid by the creator.

> Package maintainers will publish their releases to a decentralized registry powered by a Byzantine fault-tolerant blockchain to eliminate single sources of failure, provide immutable releases, and allow communities to govern their regions of the open-source ecosystem, independent of external agendas.

It's existence is an attempt to justify the creation of yet another cryptocurrency, not as a serious solution to any problem that exists in distributing software.

[j4hdufd8]

The word NFT

[P5fRxh5kUvp2th]

I don't doubt that the author if tea is well-meaning, I think the issue is how it's going to get used, which is what the other poster was referring to.

[qbasic_forever]

Being associated with Binance.

[gigatexal]

I was excited until this crypto NFT bullshit. Smh.

[la64710]

Where is this mentioned? I was getting all excited reading the README file of tea until I saw this comment. Thank you!

[RL_Quine]

Quote is directly from https://tea.xyz/tea.white-paper.pdf

[KennyBlanken]

On top of which I want literally nothing to do with Max Howell. He's the consummate brogrammer douche. Whined about getting asked to do a code exercise at a google interview, bragging about how he made a project in use by X percent of the company's engineers.

He should go to a few conferences, introduce himself under another name, and bring up brew. I'd guess after half a dozen encounters he'd stop incessantly bragging about being the creator of brew.

Everyone uses brew because they have to, not because they want to.

I'm torn between the brew team being full of insufferable people because they don't know this, and arrogant because they do know it...

[shepherdjerred]

> Everyone uses brew because they have to, not because they want to.

What?

Homebrew is easily one of my favorite pieces of software. It's the first thing I install on any new macOS or Linux machine.

Almost every piece of software I want to install is easily installable via Homebrew. The versions it has is almost always more up-to-date than what's in apt or yum. On macOS I can install all of my GUI apps with Homebrew Cask.

I have my Brewfile with my dotfiles so that any time I get a new machine it's easy to install everything I need. Just this week I updated my dotfiles to install Homebrew + my common development utilities on GitHub Codespaces. Without Homebrew I'd have a long, long, long script downloading packages from source verifying keys, installing dependencies, and then finally installing some software.

Aside from that, there are alternatives to Homebrew. Install things yourself from source, or use MacPorts.

> Whined about getting asked to do a code exercise at a google interview, bragging about how he made a project in use by X percent of the company's engineers.

My guess is that you support the status quo of software engineering interviews. That's fine, but many don't.

[pasc1878]

Why do you have to use brew - there are other package managers for macOS new ones like nixpkgs and ones much older than brew like Macports and Fink. All of these follow normal Unix standards e.g. like work on a multi user system.

[pxc]

> [Max Howell] should go to a few conferences, introduce himself under another name, and bring up brew. I'd guess after half a dozen encounters he'd stop incessantly bragging about being the creator of brew.

I share your opinion of the technical execution of Homebrew— probably anyone with a deep Linux background would. But I think Howell is well aware of those deficiencies by now (and many may even have been clear to him at the start).

I also think that it's worthwhile for us haters to take seriously what Homebrew gets right, and that means admitting that it's a tool that many, many people have experienced as pleasant and useful. The tidy subcommand interface, relative simplicity, choice of popular/trendy tools (Ruby, at the time of Homebrew's creation), inviting and consistent (if controversial) use of metaphor, and playful tone (small jokes on the docs, use of emoji in CLI output), are all things that have proven to make a real difference in Homebrew's success. None of those speak to package management fundamentals, but they're real strengths and they are visible to all users of Homebrew right away, whether they know much about package management or not.

I feel you about being basically forced to use Homebrew, though. That sucks. It's frustrating to feel hampered by the tools your team uses when you know there are better ones out there but you just can't reverse the team's inertia.

[DandyDev]

This feels like an uncalled for ad-hominem attack. Also, I might be in the minority, but I actually _like_ brew?

[pixel_tracing]

To be fair this is kind of a cool idea which is to allow open source package maintainers to earn based on popularity, the incentives here seem interesting at least.

However I highly doubt the original intention behind the NFT collaboration was altruistic to begin with.

Meaning at this point I don’t really trust any altruism in crypto in general (“hey we’re not trying to scam you we really are trying to change the world”).

The idea itself though was interesting to me: getting paid on a token based system for maintaining your open source package

[firexcy]

Didn't find any reference in the readme, but was almost sure it's crypto-related the moment I saw the header image; the silly design style is so endemic that it simply shouts crypto on the visitor's face.