The relationship to node.js is confusing

[javajosh]

Hello. I couldn't find any mention of why this project exists apart from node.js. Would love to get some clarification on that. Thanks.

[andrewk]

Also, the README instructs to download pre-compiled binaries from node.js.org/download

[arunoda]

Is this the new name of lib uv?

[arunoda]

Oh. This is node 0.12 source code. Is this is a node fork?

[crzidea]

This is node 0.12 source code.

@arunoda Are you sure?

[arunoda]

Yes. And just look at the people who've send PRs.

[Albert-IV]

Looking at the commit history, they are pulling in changes from Joyent's repo as well.

[crzidea]

@arunoda Glad to know. I can't wait to see v0.12.

[askmike]

This repo is the result of a lot of discussion in the node community about how well Joyent is performing its role.

• Some context: https://gigaom.com/2013/12/02/slap-fight-in-node-js-land/
• this repo on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8669557

[Rush]

It's nice to see @indutny in action :)

[jbergstroem]

I think this issue would benefit from silence until people being part of the fork are in a position to talk about it. Until then, what others (like me) say is at best hearsay or speculation.

[rsp]

There is some information in the discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8669557

[jbergstroem]

@rsp: I don't see any committers contributing there. Could you possibly point to a specific comment? Looks like speculation to me :(

[rashthedude]

This would have been kept as a private repo if no clarifications are in place yet. I do understand that there is a power struggle in the community and some things that we could without but if nothing is done to address it then nodejs will be losing as a consequence of it. Time to pull in the same direction, ignore egocentric behaviors and drop ulterior motives for that matter.

[yoshuawuyts]

A formal statement will probably be made soon. To my knowledge the TC / Advisory board have regular meetings and and some statement about io.js will probably be at the top of the agenda.

As for a power struggle: all of this is just the community unchaining themselves from Joyents corporate agenda. If a rebranding most occur because Joyent won't hand over the node.js trademark to the community, then so be it.

[max-mapper]

Keep the speculation/drama on hackernews please, this is an inappropriate place for it.

[Rush]

I heard that node.js was a trademark but not node itself so perhaps a more appropriate name could be chosen. io.js is kind of lame, everybody knows node. Make it node foundation, node.org or something. :)

[mikeal]

@Rush tell it to Joyent, we don't have any control over them putting it in a foundation and we can't call it anything with "node" in it or Joyent says they'll come after us for trademark violation.

[rsp]

@mikeal Is there any place where we could read some info on who is behind the fork, what is the position of Joyent and npm, Inc. regarding it, what is the plan about compatibility with Joyent's Node.js and npm modules and the registry, whether it is a fork of https://github.com/joyent/node or https://github.com/node-forward/node and any other useful information on what the fork can mean to the community?

I've found https://github.com/iojs/io.js/blob/master/doc/tc-meetings/2014-10-09.md but the issue https://github.com/node-forward/node/issues/2 that is referenced there is a dead link and the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNW_tu2QnpA was made private so most of the context is missing.

The discussion on Hacker News is mostly just speculation, the website https://github.com/iojs/iojs.github.io is an empty repo, the iojs organization has no public members, and all of the secrecy results in lots of rumors and speculation.

Is there any public discussion that is taking place? When can we expect any official answers to the question that people are asking about the fork? Thanks.

[rvagg]

Expect more information this week, there's a few complicated background events that need to happen before there can be full information flow but rest assured that the goal of everyone involved here is to achieve complete openness. Patience please.

[rsp]

@rvagg OK, I'll keep waiting. Thanks for the info.

[devongovett]

Sorry guys, I may have tweeted this kinda early https://twitter.com/devongovett/status/538131893682569216 (HN post came after that tweet). Apologies if I messed up your launch plans. :smile:

[liveinjs]

what ? what,,,,What happened ?

[mikeal]

hopefully this makes it less confusing https://github.com/iojs/io.js/pull/24

[alexgorbatchev]

https://libav.org/about.html, a fork of ffmpeg has a good intro

Libav is a friendly and community-driven effort to provide its users with a set of portable, functional and high-performance libraries for dealing with multimedia formats of all sorts. It originates from the FFmpeg codebase, but goes its own way these days, providing its users with reliable releases and a clear vision how to go forward.

[evanx]

Somebody set up us the bomb

[sorribas]

@mikeal Do you think it is a good idea to put the 0.12 branch with the updated readme as the default one? It's still a bit confusing that you get to the repo and you don't see the messaging in the master branch.

[derekm]

@mikeal -- Why not take the npm, Inc. tact to avoid trademark concerns. "node-forward" could have changed its name to "nf" and claimed it meant "not-forking". npm is disingenuous in their claim that npm doesn't mean "node package manager", and yet they get away with it without trademark worries. Makes me wonder why the "nf" team couldn't have the same success: "nf does not mean Node Forward, but is a backronym for 'not forking', we are taking node foward into the future." Then your github page could say, "nf(1) - node forward" just like NPM does when they're talking out of the other side of their mouths: https://github.com/npm/npm#npm1----node-package-manager (oops, I guess it does officially mean "node package manager", someone contact Joyent to initiate trademark agressions)

[othiym23]

@derekm Calling npm "disingenuous" seems a tad harsh. Our point when saying that "npm" isn't an acronym isn't that we're trying to disclaim our Node heritage or get around trademark issues, it's that npm has a broader audience now that it's used so heavily in client-side development, and we're reflecting that changed audience in how we think about and discuss the project / product / company. Case in point: your link into the readme no longer works, because we've changed the synopsis from "Node" to "JavaScript" as soon as we noticed that it still said Node.

The reasoning behind the io.js name and why the fork happened now and not some other time is discussed in greater detail elsewhere, so I'm not too worried about the legalistic implications of what you wrote, but I did want to be clear that we're not trying to put one over on everybody. npm is the package manager for Node, but it's more than that as well.

[cjihrig]

Can this be closed? I think the relationship with Node.js has been pretty well established by now.

[bnoordhuis]

Yes, I do believe so. I'll close the issue.