Ask HN: announcing an ambitious Internet open source project?
12 comments
In 2y, when your project will be successful, how successful the launch is will be irrelevant.
Write a blog post, short, with the key things that will make it evergreen. Use good keywords in the title.
Then don’t worry to much about a big launch, just share it on the socials you use. Over preparing can just set you up for disappointment.
Write a blog post, short, with the key things that will make it evergreen. Use good keywords in the title.
Then don’t worry to much about a big launch, just share it on the socials you use. Over preparing can just set you up for disappointment.
I hardly use social media. I need to discover places to mention it where it would be subsequently shared.
Thanks, I'd never seen that!
Does anyone know of a similar list focused on open source?
Does anyone know of a similar list focused on open source?
One place for an announcement would be “Show HN,” if your project fits within the guidelines [1], but I think what you announce is as important as where.
For example, how does your software compare, from a user’s perspective, to existing alternatives? What parts of it exist today, and how much work remains? Are you credibly in a position to deliver?
Your announcement needs to communicate your progress, competence, and realistic plans, or readers will tend to assume your project, like many, is so much vaporware.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html
For example, how does your software compare, from a user’s perspective, to existing alternatives? What parts of it exist today, and how much work remains? Are you credibly in a position to deliver?
Your announcement needs to communicate your progress, competence, and realistic plans, or readers will tend to assume your project, like many, is so much vaporware.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html
How do ppl evaluate competence and credibility in an open source lead/maintainer? Esp one with little track record in well-known open source projects?
I read what the author has written, and if I’m still interested, I look at the code itself. I try to answer, in my own mind, questions such as these:
Does the author clearly explain his or her motivation, goals, and plans for the software? Are these reasonable, in view of the complexity of the problem, the state of the art, and the personnel and other resources likely to be available?
If special expertise is required, does the author have it? Is the author familiar with others’ relevant prior work, such as existing software, industry standards, and notable books and papers? Is terminology, of the problem domain and of computing in general, used correctly?
Are the basic design decisions reasonable, and if unconventional, adequately justified? Is the target platform relevant to users? Is the implementation language widely used, especially suited to the problem domain, or both? Are existing libraries and platform facilities used, and if not, are there good explanations for what is being re-implemented and why?
How much progress has actually been made, and how does this compare with the author’s own assessment of that progress? Does the code do what is claimed? Are there any major parts that are missing? Are the algorithms and data structures suitable? Does the code follow a consistent style? Are there comments? Are errors and exceptions handled?
Does the author clearly explain his or her motivation, goals, and plans for the software? Are these reasonable, in view of the complexity of the problem, the state of the art, and the personnel and other resources likely to be available?
If special expertise is required, does the author have it? Is the author familiar with others’ relevant prior work, such as existing software, industry standards, and notable books and papers? Is terminology, of the problem domain and of computing in general, used correctly?
Are the basic design decisions reasonable, and if unconventional, adequately justified? Is the target platform relevant to users? Is the implementation language widely used, especially suited to the problem domain, or both? Are existing libraries and platform facilities used, and if not, are there good explanations for what is being re-implemented and why?
How much progress has actually been made, and how does this compare with the author’s own assessment of that progress? Does the code do what is claimed? Are there any major parts that are missing? Are the algorithms and data structures suitable? Does the code follow a consistent style? Are there comments? Are errors and exceptions handled?
If it's open source and ambitious I can't see why you would like to keep it closed like this for so long. Looks a bit megalomaniac.
Just create a show HN and we'll judge. :-)
Just create a show HN and we'll judge. :-)
Ouch :-p
I didn't say it's closed, but I have deferred the announcement so as to prepare something that conveys the design intent to a broad audience. IOW no 2nd chance at the 1st impression :-)
I didn't say it's closed, but I have deferred the announcement so as to prepare something that conveys the design intent to a broad audience. IOW no 2nd chance at the 1st impression :-)
If it's not ready for evaluation then HN is probably your best bet since it would stay within the circle of devs. Twitter/Reddit/FB won't get you the open source contributors and critique you're looking for.
To clarify, it is ready for evaluation, but not production.
HN, Twitter. I’m not sure I would bother with Reddit these days. There are probably relevant Facebook groups. Maybe write a blog post that people can link to.
The project is ready for evaluation by the Internet community, but not yet production use. It needs open source contributors and constructive critique.
I've been working on it solo for >2y, and have circulated a handful of releases to a few friends.
It hasn't yet been publicly announced. How can I publicize this?