Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Clarify lack of relationship to withoutboats/notty #28

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Clarify lack of relationship to withoutboats/notty #28

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

agarwal
Copy link

@agarwal agarwal commented Mar 16, 2019

Address #3 by adding documentation explaining that this project is unrelated to withoutboats/notty.

Address #3 by adding documentation explaining that this project is unrelated to withoutboats/notty.
@pqwy
Copy link
Owner

pqwy commented Mar 18, 2019

Thank you!

Sadly, this fix is a little incomplete -- we must first clarify our relationship with Eva Notty, before setting out to systematically distance ourselves from any further Nottys.

And I believe that this can not be done appropriately in less than 800 vehemently critical words. If you would kindly solve that problem first, I would be happy to accept both fixes.

@agarwal
Copy link
Author

agarwal commented Mar 19, 2019

withoutboats/notty is also a piece of software related to terminals, and there is thus a possibility of confusion. I don't really see how anyone might confuse this software with Eva Notty.

@pqwy
Copy link
Owner

pqwy commented Mar 19, 2019

I guess that's true.

What I was getting at is that I've never heard of anyone getting confused, or asking that question.

Have you? If you have, then it makes sense to address it.

@agarwal
Copy link
Author

agarwal commented Mar 20, 2019

Perhaps the heading of FAQ is not justified, but it was just a small sentence I thought could be added to the README. You might be right that it's not worth it, and so I understand if you close this PR without merging.

Note that a google search for "notty" returns the withoutboats one as the top result. Your repo doesn't show up on the first page. If you change the search to "notty terminal", then both come up, raising the question about how the two are related. My immediate thought (for no good reason) was that perhaps your code is a binding to the withoutboats library. Then I clicked the withoutboats link (it is first) and saw that it is Affero GPL licensed, and promptly closed my browser tab and was never going to look back again. Luckily something didn't seem right, so I kept looking and realized there is no connection.

@pqwy
Copy link
Owner

pqwy commented Mar 25, 2019

Yeah, OK, that makes sense. Obviously to me there is a sea of difference, but if you got confused, then a pointer is in order.

Thanks!

@cfcs
Copy link

cfcs commented Apr 8, 2019

My top result is https://opam.ocaml.org/packages/notty/notty.0.2.0/ ... guess the information bubble is real :-)

@pqwy pqwy closed this in c641e71 Apr 10, 2019
@pqwy
Copy link
Owner

pqwy commented Apr 10, 2019

Oh, for me, it's a lot of Eva Notty and the odd Urban Dictionary definition on DDG. On Google, withoutboats gets the little blurb on top, and the rest are definitions.net, UD, withoutboats and -- and this, number 4!

To my defence, neither is allowed to store anything in the browser. Maybe this is ddg profiling me based on User-Agent...

@cfcs
Copy link

cfcs commented Apr 10, 2019

Ah, now you got me interested in this Eva Notty person, took a while to figure out that I had to turn "safe search" off to find her. ;)

@pqwy
Copy link
Owner

pqwy commented Apr 10, 2019

Yeah... that's the unfortunate major name clash that this library has. :D

@agarwal agarwal deleted the patch-2 branch October 12, 2019 12:05
pqwy added a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 2, 2022
This pull request was closed.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants