Ecosia's founders have legally restructured the company to prevent it from ever being sold, even by future owners. This ensures that Ecosia's profits will always be used to plant trees and pursue its environmental mission. The change involves a new legal structure called a "steward ownership model" and a purpose foundation that holds all voting rights. This effectively makes selling Ecosia for profit impossible, guaranteeing its long-term commitment to environmental sustainability.
The Matrix Foundation, facing a severe funding shortfall, announced it needs to secure $100,000 by the end of March 2025 to avoid shutting down crucial Matrix bridges. These bridges connect Matrix with other communication platforms like IRC, XMPP, and Slack, significantly expanding its reach and interoperability. Without this funding, the Foundation will be forced to decommission the bridges, impacting users and fragmenting the Matrix ecosystem. They are calling on the community and commercial partners to contribute and help secure the future of these vital connections.
HN commenters largely express skepticism and disappointment at Matrix's current state. Many question the viability of the project given its ongoing funding issues and inability to gain wider adoption. Several commenters criticize the foundation's management and decision-making, particularly regarding the bridge infrastructure. Some suggest alternative approaches like focusing on decentralized bridges or seeking government funding, while others believe the project may be nearing its end. The difficulty of bridging between different messaging protocols and the lack of a clear path towards sustainability are recurring themes. A few users express hope for the project's future but acknowledge significant challenges remain.
Freedesktop.org and Alpine Linux, two significant organizations in the open-source Linux ecosystem, are urgently seeking new web hosting after their current provider, Bytemark, announced its impending closure. This leaves these organizations, which host crucial project infrastructure like Git repositories, mailing lists, and download servers, with a tight deadline to migrate their services. The loss of Bytemark, a long-time supporter of open-source projects, highlights the precarious nature of relying on smaller hosting providers and the challenge of finding replacements willing to offer similar levels of service and support to often resource-constrained open-source projects.
HN commenters discuss the irony of major open-source projects relying on donated infrastructure and facing precarity. Several express concern about the fragility of the open-source ecosystem, highlighting the dependence on individual goodwill and the lack of sustainable funding models. Some suggest exploring federated hosting solutions or community-owned infrastructure to mitigate future risks. Others propose that affected projects should leverage their significant user base to crowdfund resources or find corporate sponsors. A few commenters downplay the issue, suggesting migration to a new host is a relatively simple task. The overall sentiment reflects a mixture of worry about the future of essential open-source projects and a desire for more robust, community-driven solutions.
Marginalia is a search engine designed to surface non-commercial content, prioritizing personal websites, blogs, and other independently published works often overshadowed by commercial results in mainstream search. It aims to rediscover the original spirit of the web by focusing on unique, human-generated content and fostering a richer, more diverse online experience. The search engine utilizes a custom index built by crawling sites linked from curated sources, filtering out commercial and spammy domains. Marginalia emphasizes quality over quantity, presenting a smaller, more carefully selected set of results to help users find hidden gems and explore lesser-known corners of the internet.
Hacker News users generally praised Marginalia's concept of prioritizing non-commercial content, viewing it as a refreshing alternative to mainstream search engines saturated with ads and SEO-driven results. Several commenters expressed enthusiasm for the focus on personal websites, blogs, and academic resources. Some questioned the long-term viability of relying solely on donations, while others suggested potential improvements like user accounts, saved searches, and more granular control over source filtering. There was also discussion around the definition of "non-commercial," with some users highlighting the inherent difficulty in objectively classifying content. A few commenters shared their initial search experiences, noting both successes in finding unique content and instances where the results were too niche or limited. Overall, the sentiment leaned towards cautious optimism, with many expressing hope that Marginalia could carve out a valuable space in the search landscape.
Summary of Comments ( 113 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43317887
Hacker News users generally praised Ecosia's commitment to its mission, viewing the legal restructuring as a positive move. Some expressed skepticism about the long-term viability of the business model and wondered how Ecosia would adapt to future challenges without the option of selling. Others questioned the specific legal mechanisms employed and compared them to other charitable structures. A few commenters also raised concerns about potential future leadership changes and how those could impact Ecosia's stated commitment. Several users shared their personal experiences with the search engine, generally positive, and discussed the tradeoffs between Ecosia and other search options.
The Hacker News post discussing Ecosia giving up its right to ever be sold has a moderate number of comments, mostly focusing on the implications of the "steward ownership" model and comparing it to other organizational structures.
Several commenters express skepticism about the long-term viability and enforceability of this model. One commenter questions how this structure protects against a hostile takeover, pointing out that the foundation could still be pressured or legally compelled to sell. They also raise concerns about the potential for mission drift over time, even with the steward ownership in place. Another echoes this sentiment, suggesting that dedicated individuals can be replaced, and the legal framework might not be sufficient to indefinitely prevent a sale if significant financial incentives arise in the future.
There's a discussion about the potential limitations of the steward ownership model for scaling and adapting to changing market conditions. One commenter argues that the inability to sell might hinder Ecosia's growth by limiting its access to capital or preventing it from merging with a larger entity. Another counter-argues that this structure might actually be beneficial in the long run by forcing the organization to focus on sustainable growth and long-term value creation, rather than short-term profits.
A few commenters draw parallels to other organizational structures, such as cooperatives and non-profit organizations. One suggests that Ecosia's model resembles a perpetual purpose trust, designed to preserve a specific mission over time. Another mentions the limitations of traditional non-profit models, which can sometimes be bureaucratic and inefficient.
Some comments focus on the practical implications of Ecosia's commitment. One commenter asks about the specifics of the legal structure and how it will be enforced. Another questions how Ecosia plans to attract and retain talent without the possibility of equity-based compensation.
Overall, the comments reflect a mixture of admiration for Ecosia's commitment to its mission and pragmatic concerns about the long-term effectiveness of the chosen legal structure. There's a general recognition of the innovative nature of the approach, but also a healthy dose of skepticism about its ability to withstand future pressures and challenges.