Dude, the author and you are so far out of the loop on SO it's strange. How long have you been in the SO and HN communities?
Joel and Jeff setup SO because EE sucked so bad, from the beginning they've said 'we're not going to end up like the site with the hyphen'.
And now you're saying they're going to go against their entire raison d'etre? They have been upfront about everything, they made the posts all CC (http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/06/stack-overflow-creativ...) so the old experts-exchange and IMDB bait and switch can't happen to SO.
Go listen to their old podcasts and read their original blogs.
Joel and Jeff setup SO because EE sucked so bad, from the beginning they've said 'we're not going to end up like the site with the hyphen'.
Jeff has already left the company. When Joel leaves who is going to be the antihyphen then? All it would take is a new board with some short term thinking(perhaps post IPO) to get them to hyphen land. As pointed out in the article EE started with high ideals too.
Their statement of CC licensing isn't clear. Do I license them my content CC or is it theirs and they license it back to me CC?
Google has already decided that anyone who tries to take the content and launch a SO a like is going to get penalized to death, so good luck on forking if they go evil.
Google has already decided that anyone who tries to take the content and launch a SO a like is going to get penalized to death, so good luck on forking if they go evil.
Did they really say that? I am a bit skeptical that they would do that, but maybe they made an exception with the "Panda" update thing.
Google hasn't said it they have done it(I don't follow Google that closely so I don't know if it is the Panda update or what). There have been several SO content clones. Some ranked higher than SO for given queries even after the update that was aimed at low quality content(the only reason I heard of it is because it generated a few HN articles). When that was mentioned on HN a couple of Googlers asked for examples so they could "Fix it".
Dude, the author and you are so far out of the loop on SO it's strange. How long have you been in the SO and HN communities?
I'm on the SO since 2009 IIRC. (Btw, I'm over 16, non American, and my surname is not Lebowski, so I'm not a "dude").
Joel and Jeff setup SO because EE sucked so bad, from the beginning they've said 'we're not going to end up like the site with the hyphen'. And now you're saying they're going to go against their entire raison d'etre?
Yeah, and Google once said "don't be evil". Corporate promises don't mean much, I'll take laws, signed contracts or systemic assurances over them anytime.
When there's profit involved and especially investors, money has a way to become the 'raison d'etre'.
> Corporate promises don't mean much, I'll take laws, signed contracts or systemic assurances over them anytime.
Then you'll love the copyright license (CC) under which they offer the questions and answers for free copying and redistribution, the contract law that binds them to this license and the other terms of their site, and the systemic assurance this creates that they cannot put up a paywall around the answers we've provided. We can just take them with us to another site; many SO clones including the full content already exist, entirely legally.
It was a more of a 'dude, calm down'. You're shouting and swearing and getting angry at a couple of guys who's declared motive was to try and fix the information exchange model for everyone and make the world a better place.
I for one am immensely grateful to both of them for making my job a lot, lot easier, has given me pride in the answers I've provided and also for creating something that's a pleasure to use.
I assume none of us here are naive enough to think that there's not a chance that at some point in the future it might get worse, but their actions so far show nothing to be concerned about.
The way the SO content is licensed and the API creates a powerful disincentive for a malevolent corporate overlord from putting a paywall up.
A paywall would dramatically reduce the amount of new content being generated, and the open license of the existing content lowers the entry barriers for a competitor. Even an MBA can figure out that a paywall is a bad idea.
That's not to say that there isn't some other creative way that a malevolent overlord could do evil with SO, but in any case, you or I can pick up the back catalog of data and do whatever we wish.
It was a more of a 'dude, calm down'. You're shouting and swearing and getting angry
Swearing? You mean the "have you read the fucking article" kind of swearing? And shouting? You mean emphasizing "real world" with uppercase, because HN doesn't allow bold? ...
at a couple of guys who's declared motive was to try and fix the information exchange model for everyone and make the world a better place. I assume none of us here are naive enough to think that there's not a chance that at some point in the future it might get worse, but their actions so far show nothing to be concerned about.
One of them has already quit. VC money are in. Since you agree there is such a chance, then I merely pointed out that it's reasonable to "be concerned about" it.
Joel and Jeff setup SO because EE sucked so bad, from the beginning they've said 'we're not going to end up like the site with the hyphen'.
And now you're saying they're going to go against their entire raison d'etre? They have been upfront about everything, they made the posts all CC (http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/06/stack-overflow-creativ...) so the old experts-exchange and IMDB bait and switch can't happen to SO.
Go listen to their old podcasts and read their original blogs.