Right now: we are. And we're collectively paying too much for a crap product as it stands.

Debian figured this out three decades ago. Maybe look to them for inspiration.

notatallshaw a day ago | parent | next [-]

If you want to offer a PyPI competitor where your value is all packages are vetted or reviewed nothing stops you, the API that Python package installer tools to interact with PyPI is specified: https://packaging.python.org/en/latest/specifications/simple...

There are a handful of commercial competitors in this space, but in my experience this ends up only being valuable for a small % of companies. Either a company is small enough and it wants to be agile and it doesn't have time for a third party to vet or review packages they want to use. Or a company is big enough that it builds it's own internal solution. And single users tend to get annoyed when something doesn't work and stop using it.

▲

em-bee a day ago | parent | next [-]

that's like suggesting someone complaining about security issues should fork libxml or openssl because the original developers don't have enough resources to maintain their work. the right answer is that as users of those packages we need to pool our resources and contribute to enable the developers to do a better job.

for pypi that means raising funds that we can contribute to.

so instead of arguing that the PSF doesn't have the resources, they should go and raise them. do some analysis on what it takes, and then start a call for help/contributions. to get started, all it takes is to recognize the problem and put fixing it on the agenda.

	▲	woodruffw a day ago \| parent [-]
		> so instead of arguing that the PSF doesn't have the resources, they should go and raise them The PSF has raised resources for support; the person who wrote this post is working full-time to make PyPI better. But you can't staff your way out of this problem; PyPI would need ~dozens of full time reviewers to come anywhere close to a human-vetted view of the index. I don't think that's realistic.

▲

ajross a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Right. That's the economic argument: hosting anonymously-submitted/unvetted/insecure/exploit-prone junkware is cheap. And so if you have a platform you're trying to push (like Python or Node[1]) you're strongly incentivized to root your users simply because if you don't your competitors will.

But it's still broken.

[1] Frankly even Rust has this disease with the way cargo is managed, though that remains far enough upstream of the danger zone to not be as much of a target. But the reckoning is coming there at some point.

▲

zahlman a day ago | parent | prev [-]

> And we're collectively paying too much for a crap product as it stands.

Last I checked, we pay $0 beyond our normal cost for bandwidth, and their end of the bandwidth is also subsidized.