Aisle 3, behind the WebOS devices.
On Tuesday, December 3, 2013 at 11:54 PM, Luke Arduini wrote:
> I would like to buy one node core developer team for cheap, please. Where can
> I purchase these programmers?
>
> On Tuesday, December 3, 2013, Stephen Belanger wrote:
> >
> > The only scenario I
I would like to buy one node core developer team for cheap, please. Where
can I purchase these programmers?
On Tuesday, December 3, 2013, Stephen Belanger wrote:
>
>
> The only scenario I can think of being at all possible is that somehow
> Joyent manages to screw up and go bankrupt, then someone
Very well put, Isaac.
I think eventually someone will come along that wants to buy it and put it in a
foundation. I don’t think Joyent would let it go for cheap though.
The only scenario I can think of being at all possible is that somehow Joyent
manages to screw up and go bankrupt, then someon
Are there any more questions about leadership?
On Tuesday, December 3, 2013 9:24:02 AM UTC-8, Darren DeRidder wrote:
>
> Be it proposed that the community of Node.JS users and supporters will be
> better served by moving the Node.JS project and its affiliated trade marks
> and copyrights under t
Issac,
> We think it hurts Node.js adoption for it to be perceived to be owned by
Joyent.
That's a bold claim to make of the platform that is *still* growing faster
in adoption than any platform in history. Can you back it up with data?
Where SHOULD Node.js be adopted? Please be specific. Nam
It’s very sad to see Ben go. His contributions to node, and especially libuv,
have been substantial. He leaves a large hole that will be difficult to fill.
Thank you Ben, for making node so great! :)
On Tuesday, December 3, 2013 at 10:23 PM, Chris O'Hara wrote:
> Congratulations to Joyent an
Just a few things.
When you want to comment in regard to Bryan Cantrill's post on behalf of Joyent
it doesn't make you sound more definitive to state your opinion as some sort of
overwhelming consensus when it is not. I agreed with Bryan and have nothing to
do with Joyent. Many others feel the
Congratulations to Joyent and the community for pushing a great developer
away.
On another note, thanks for all your hard work Ben. We wouldn't be where we
are without you.
On Wednesday, December 4, 2013 4:36:07 PM UTC+11, Isaac Schlueter wrote:
>
> As of this past weekend, Ben Noordhuis has de
To clarify, Brett, in reference to the first article, the "old timers"
around here who followed this issue as it unfolded will probably realize it
involves underlying friction between developers at two different companies
coming to the surface. The response of Bryan C., publicly calling for the
As of this past weekend, Ben Noordhuis has decided to step away from
Node.js and libuv, and is no longer acting as a core committer.
Ben has done a tremendous amount of great work in the past. We're sad to
lose the benefit of his continued hard work and expertise, and extremely
grateful for what h
On Dec 3, 2013, at 10:29 PM, Matt wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 9:40 PM, // ravi wrote:
> I readily admit mine may be a minority view,
>
> FWIW I don't think it is - the very vocal majority appears to support
> Joyent's blog post and actions here, and maintaining this status quo. Those
> of
I'm really dont see why this solution better than dosen other.
You write in docs - "wrap module" - looks like bad idia. How I can use node.js
(server-side) tests?
Actually I use my own solution for CJS -> browser compilling and its not 'lite
& simply' just becouse its hard :-)
--
--
Job Board
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 9:40 PM, // ravi wrote:
> I readily admit mine may be a minority view,
>
FWIW I don't think it is - the very vocal majority appears to support
Joyent's blog post and actions here, and maintaining this status quo. Those
of us who think Joyent's actions were unfortunate (to
Just simpler, smaller. It's only one file about 1.4kb.
Require.js and sea.js target the client side javascript moularization, but
do not access how to make module to be used in both side.
Browserify traverses the ast of javascript and comile to a new generated
file for client side use. So maybe t
On Dec 3, 2013, at 8:09 PM, Issac Roth wrote:
> This is Issac (the bald one) from StrongLoop. We're active sponsors of the
> Node.js project in core, modules, meetups, evangelism, etc, but not in any
> kind of leadership way like Joyent.
>
> We think Node.js should move to a foundation. (Eclips
Paraphrasing your response:
Fear: what happens if Joyent is acquired and the new evil owner of Node
takes the project in a terrible direction?
Uncertainty: companies might not adopt Node if it continues under the
stewardship of a for-profit company. Where does that leave the future of
the users?
Joyents actions last week weakened the perception of nodejs. This makes it
harder to continue the growth we had so far. Right when we are "crossing
the chasm" and showing its a viable piece of technology for more
traditional companies. This makes our work harder and made everyone's
contributions le
This is Issac (the bald one) from StrongLoop. We're active sponsors of the
Node.js project in core, modules, meetups, evangelism, etc, but not in any
kind of leadership way like Joyent.
We think Node.js should move to a foundation. (Eclipse or Mozilla, not
Apache.) We think it hurts Node.js ado
On Dec 3, 2013, at 16:31, Simeon Chaos wrote:
> twoside.js can make module to be used in both server side and client side.
> Just ·npm install twoside·, and then copy twoside.js to your folder.
> See https://github.com/chaosim/twoside and https://npmjs.org/package/twoside
> for more information.
Lol, it can't be possible. I really want to say my most sincerely opinion
but I'll probably be banned from the earth. It can be summarized with:
Joyent, what a shame of company.
--
--
Job Board: http://jobs.nodejs.org/
Posting guidelines:
https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/Mailing-List-Posti
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 4:58 PM, Scott González wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Matt wrote:
>
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Scott González
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Matt wrote:
>>>
It would mean that Joyent as a company is insulated from Node communit
Lol, it can't be possible. I really want to say my most sincerely opinion
but I'll probably be banned from the earth. It can be resumed with: Joyent,
what a shame of company.
--
--
Job Board: http://jobs.nodejs.org/
Posting guidelines:
https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/Mailing-List-Posting-
twoside.js can make module to be used in both server side and client side.
Just ·npm install twoside·, and then copy twoside.js to your folder.
See https://github.com/chaosim/twoside and
https://npmjs.org/package/twoside for more information.
--
--
Job Board: http://jobs.nodejs.org/
Posting gui
On Dec 3, 2013, at 12:41 PM, Forrest L Norvell wrote:
> Not seconded.
>
> There's an argument to made to remove single stewardship from Node *at all*
> and to move it under a truly free license (such as GPLv2), but I think that
> ship has sailed.
I agree on both counts.
My 2 cents: ASF is a
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Matt wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Scott González
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Matt wrote:
>>
>>> It would mean that Joyent as a company is insulated from Node community
>>> issues like this one, and that would be a very good thing.
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Scott González wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Matt wrote:
>
>> It would mean that Joyent as a company is insulated from Node community
>> issues like this one, and that would be a very good thing.
>>
>
> Good for who? If Joyent is concerned, they can take
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Matt wrote:
> It would mean that Joyent as a company is insulated from Node community
> issues like this one, and that would be a very good thing.
>
Good for who? If Joyent is concerned, they can take the action of creating
a foundation. I don't think the communit
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 2:37 PM, Mikeal Rogers wrote:
> I wrote about this in greater detail:
>
> https://gist.github.com/mikeal/7738226
>
> A foundation can't help us deal with these issues with regard to the
> explosion in users and ecosystem, it could only attempt to alter the
> process around c
> it could only attempt to alter the process around core which is not a
very important issue
I don't think that's the *only* thing it could do, in fact I doubt it would
do that at all. Though yes, the ASF would do that, which is why I don't
like the ASF.
It would mean that Joyent as a company is
I wrote about this in greater detail:
https://gist.github.com/mikeal/7738226
A foundation can't help us deal with these issues with regard to the explosion
in users and ecosystem, it could only attempt to alter the process around core
which is not a very important issue.
-Mikeal
On Dec 3, 201
If a Node.js foundation could mitigate tensions, help communication inside
the Node.js community and drive the project, wouldn't it worth the cost?
-L
On Tuesday, 3 December 2013 13:49:43 UTC-5, Stephen Belanger wrote:
>
> That seems like a good idea until you see the mountain of paperwork an
That seems like a good idea until you see the mountain of paperwork and money
required. Foundations are hard.
On Tuesday, December 3, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Laurent Fortin wrote:
> Why not a Node.js foundation?
>
>
> https://twitter.com/mariocasciaro/status/406948487905804288
>
>
>
>
> On Tuesd
Why not a Node.js foundation?
https://twitter.com/mariocasciaro/status/406948487905804288
On Tuesday, 3 December 2013 12:24:02 UTC-5, Darren DeRidder wrote:
>
> Be it proposed that the community of Node.JS users and supporters will be
> better served by moving the Node.JS project and its aff
Losing Ben, even if it ends up being just for a short time, is a huge loss
to this project [*], and the StrongLoop writeup on it makes an extremely
strong point: this was an opportunity for communication and education, not
name calling to try and save face to a lynch mob.
I agree with the premise
Not seconded.
There's an argument to made to remove single stewardship from Node *at all*
and to move it under a truly free license (such as GPLv2), but I think that
ship has sailed. Joyent has been a responsible steward of Node's trademarks
and otherwise has left it alone to develop as it will. I
Can't say I follow your logic. The article you cite discusses a
disagreement on the value of a patch between the Node owners/massive
contributors and a significant contributor.
Based on this Node should move to a new owner? Regardless of which side of
the disagreement one falls on, I'm not seein
Disagree. Joyent holds it down, and ASF is where software projects go to
collect dust.
--Josh
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 10:24 AM, Darren DeRidder wrote:
> Be it proposed that the community of Node.JS users and supporters will be
> better served by moving the Node.JS project and its affiliated trad
Be it proposed that the community of Node.JS users and supporters will be
better served by moving the Node.JS project and its affiliated trade marks
and copyrights under the control of the Apache Software Foundation.
Refer to http://gigaom.com/2013/12/02/slap-fight-in-node-js-land/ and to
the m
Forget it.
Please fix the extremly bad documentation. Right now, very few people know
how to implement and use the streams correctly.
--
--
Job Board: http://jobs.nodejs.org/
Posting guidelines:
https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/Mailing-List-Posting-Guidelines
You received this message beca
it makes sense, that the Readable implementation gets not error
notification. Why should it. It's in the domain of the code, which does
r.pipe(w) to handle the errored state, the readable stream itself can't
know what is the right error reaction.
Am Dienstag, 3. Dezember 2013 14:32:59 UTC+1 sch
I have a writable stream piped into a readable stream. The writable stream
at some point fails and emits an error. Me, as a readable stream
implementor, how am I supposed to handle this situation? Do I receive any
event from the writable stream?
I have this example that shows what I'm trying to
@Vladimir I don't understand that exactly
@Fedor Do you use NPM?
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 1:21 AM, Fedor Indutny wrote:
> Heya!
>
> Its quite interesting to see you naming your project "bud", since I've
> just released a TLS terminator with the same name:
> https://github.com/indutny/bud . Hehe,
Hi Syed,
You don't need anything special to export Excel files, you just need the
same web server and templating modules that you use to serve HTML.
Set a Content-Disposition header in your response, and output an HTML3
document containing just a table, then Excel will be a happy bunny.
e.g.
Co
Heya!
Its quite interesting to see you naming your project "bud", since I've
just released a TLS terminator with the same name:
https://github.com/indutny/bud . Hehe, but thumbs up for it! Looking
quite promising.
Cheers,
Fedor.
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Vladimir Varankin wrote:
> Nice p
Nice project, it looks very clean and much easier than Make, but still very
familiar.
Are there any examples of task-generation during execution.
Imaging, that you run a chain of tasks A → B. So during "B" node execution,
you decide, than "A" couldn't be managed without another node "C", so the
Sorry for reviving this old thread but I just spend alot of time tracking
down a performance issue that was caused by the same problem as below. Dns
lookups were slow since they were being made for both ipv4 and ipv6 and a
particular domain's ipv6 address couldn't be found and therefor was not
46 matches
Mail list logo
