• OpenStars@piefed.socialEnglish
      2·
      3 hours ago

      This seems different than the situation with Bluesky though, where there is no hope of it ever becoming open source. I concede that eventually if the code to Loops is never released you’ll end up being right, it’s just that it still seems early enough in its development that people haven’t given up all hope for that yet.

      • originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com
        1·
        3 hours ago

        i agree on bluesky. its just another walled garden with a few extra features.

        as for loops… id say its too early in its development, then, to be included in infographics depicting federating platforms. its lying to new users about what its capable now. if/when he ever gets federation implemented, then we can update literature.

        im very confused why everyone wants to market a product that cant yet do the core thing we are all here for. there is zero reason to include it right now.

        • OpenStars@piefed.socialEnglish
          1·
          3 hours ago

          I didn’t make the criteria to define what a “Fediverse project” can or cannot include, just commenting that it seems to be based on people’s hopes and dreams. e.g. Sublinks, though that one had little to no activity for so long that people really did lose hope for awhile, while Loops is at least actively continuing its development - even though as you say not specifically in terms of federating.

          Worst of all is how if the code were released, people would outright do that task for the chief developer, so holding back the codebase (to decide on a specific license or whatever other reason) is the primary limitation. Though - just like Sublinks - if there were any other project that even came close to promising to fulfill that same functionality (as Lemmy does for the forum-based Threadiverse) then people would forget all about Loops. Instead, right now it’s the only one of its kind.