Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Looks neat. What tech stack is used for this? Is it open source by chance?


Thanks! We're using Tauri (https://v2.tauri.app/) on the client, and Elixir + Phoenix (with a little bit of Rust via Rustler) on the server

Tauri means we can reuse a lot of the Rust we already have, easily do the systems stuff we need, and have something light + fast. Elixir has been awesome and makes a realtime sync backend easier

Not currently open source while it's under heavy early development, we will be opening up the desktop app later on


Are there any plans to add an integration to something like Phoenix LiveBook?


> we will be opening up the desktop app later on

This leaves room for stuff like the Functional Software License.


Amazing. Im very happy this is not yet another electron app


Tauri wraps around the system's web view, so it's semantically equivalent to Electron.

(nb: system web views are very inconsistent, so they're considering adding a Chromium renderer, which will bring everything full circle)


> nb: system web views are very inconsistent

we've found they're generally ok between mac/windows, with some issues on Linux. Nothing insurmountable, however.

Anything super complex (terminals, charts) we can render with canvas or webgl anyway


This is one place where it would be more likely to make sense to have an electron app, because with user code, you'd already have a lot of variables out of your control, and having a standard browser engine would help. Also unlike other apps, you hopefully wouldn't have 5 code notebook apps running.


It is bothersome to see people who obviously don’t believe in free software ideology and software freedoms (otherwise you would never produce nonfree software) (ab)using the open source community in this way.

Software freedoms exist as a concept for a reason, not just a bullet point to get people to click a download link that doesn’t even include source anyway.

I call such projects “open source cosplay”. It’s an outfit you put on for conferences, then take off when back at the office working on the nonfree valuable parts.


Atuin's CLI for shell history is open source, has been free for years, and is a very useful tool. If the author now wants to build a product on top so she can make a living, that's a win for everyone: the author, the open source users (since the project will keep being maintained), and people who get value out of the new product she's building.

The irony of this purist mindset is that it's actually very corporatist, big-tech, and proprietary in its implications. If open source devs are discouraged by the culture from building products and making a living independently, it means that the only people who can devote significant time to open source are employees of established companies (who themselves often sell closed source proprietary products) and people who are wealthy enough to work for free. Is that the world you want?


This only logically follows if you believe in the mistaken premise and false dichotomy that it is impossible to make money with foss software.


This kind of attitude is why less and less people are open sourcing software

Why would I waste my time releasing any of my projects for free when people will attack me and call me a poser anyway

Might as well charge people money, who by the way will actually be grateful to do so, that try to keep up with the open source community's purity treadmill


There’s no treadmill. Belief in software freedoms has always been belief in software freedoms.

It’s ok if you don’t believe in software freedoms, but you shouldn’t pretend to be someone who does by releasing some software that respects users’ software freedoms. It’s deceptive.

Either you care about software freedoms, or you don’t. If you don’t, why are you releasing any software under free software licenses? If you do, why are you releasing any nonfree software?

Also, do you have a single bit of backing data to suggest that your first sentence is true? I don’t believe that it is. It seems to me there is more free software than ever before.


> It’s ok if you don’t believe in software freedoms, but you shouldn’t pretend to be someone who does by releasing some software that respects users’ software freedoms. It’s deceptive.

As long as the different parts are clearly marked/indicated as such, why would you impose such a ridiculous standard? In your world, if a company makes 99% of their software GPL, and then releases some proprietary tool, they're suddenly being deceptive? Would you prefer to just lose the 99%?


I would prefer companies be up front about whether or not they believe in software freedoms for users.

In the example case, they plainly do not, otherwise they would not subject their users to nonfree software.

I don’t think wishing vendors to be honest is a ridiculous standard.


I agree GP's attitude is ridiculous, but if a very small number of purists on the internet is the reason less people are open sourcing software, then those people are just as guilty of bad reasoning/judgment as the purists.

IMHO the real reason is that the threat of hostile/competing forks has gone up. It used to be gauche at best, evil at worst, to take somebody's open source code and compete with them, but increasingly the landscape is changing. I think that's the real problem, and IMHO the answer to that is the AGPL, not to go proprietary.


Do you want it to be open source because of the price or because you’re afraid of being rug pulled by the platform or you want to contribute?


If I use something I like the idea that I can fix bugs should the need arise.




Consider applying for YC's Winter 2026 batch! Applications are open till Nov 10

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: