[axegon_]

> The schematics and PCB layout have not been released, so the OTG messenger is not an open-source hardware project yet, but Trevor says it may become open source if there’s enough positive interest from the community.

My disappointment is immeasurable.

[Sophistifunk]

It means they're still looking into productising it themselves, and they won't release the schematics until a) they've got a shipment to sell, or b) they give up on dealing with the chinese scammers they're currently negotiating with.

[dmos62]

I don't know. Personally, I've hesitated releasing designs and code that was messy, even if useful. It takes some work to release something. Maybe not much, but when it's a hobby project it's easy to put it off.

[GekkePrutser]

True but this does look pretty ready

[GekkePrutser]

I agree that's what it looks like but I wonder what the point is of trying to make a business around some old hardware that's got questionable amounts of them still around

[skrebbel]

The author doesn't owe you anything though.

[justinjlynn]

True. However, one can still feel disappointed.

[axegon_]

Did I ever claim the opposite?

[sschueller]

"enough positive interest from the community". I don't understand that. How much work is it to release? If I make software I can see that if I hacked a giant crap of code together that I would want to clean it up before releasing it to public and save my self the embarrassment knowing I could do it better. However with hardware, you generally need to get it somewhat right or it doesn't work at all and you can't fix it quick.

[geocar]

> If I make software I can see that if I hacked a giant crap of code together that I would want to clean it up before releasing it to public and save my self the embarrassment knowing I could do it better.

I think hardware is the same way. There's also protocols to fabrication that may be difficult to explain. You have support requests and emails wasting your time.

> "enough positive interest from the community". I don't understand that.

I read it as opposed to negative interest.

> If I make software I can see that if I hacked a giant crap of code together that I would want to clean it up before releasing it to public and save my self the embarrassment knowing I could do it better.

You should not be made to feel ashamed for giving something away for free. You should not even suggest that this should be acceptable. It isn't. People who offer comments on code beyond how to add material functionality (i.e. more inputs), make it faster, or decrease the code size are trash humans. Delete and ignore.

[cdstyh]

>People who offer comments on code beyond how to add material functionality (i.e. more inputs), make it faster, or decrease the code size are trash humans.

I strongly disagree. Making code more maintainable and easy to understand is very important. Enforcing style guides is important

[snovv_crash]

Depends on if other people are gonna work on it too, right? By barging in and telling people their indentation is messy because it's a mix of tabs and spaces which isn't consistent on your IDE, you take away the time they might otherwise spend on doing what they want. It isn't there for you, it's a passion project not a job.

[swiley]

At least with the company I'm at, I'm supposed to talk to my boss before releasing code from side projects.

[TedDoesntTalk]

Sounds like slavery or indentured servitude. Why do you accept it?

[swiley]

Because it was otherwise significantly better than my previous situation? A better question is "why is this legal?"

[TedDoesntTalk]

You could, you know, ignore the demand and publish whatever you want.

[swiley]

I like being able to pay rent though.