>> All right!
You're tired?
You're hot, it's been a long day.
Shake it out a little bit.
Shake it out.
All right.
Here we are.
So, I'm going to talk about economics of package management, and more specifically in open
source.
It's - I'm going to tell you a story about who owns the JavaScript language commons,
how we got into this situation with the JavaScript language commons is by someone, and why we
need to change it.
This is a story about money, ownership, and control, as much as it is about JavaScript.
I am going to tell you this story.
I'm going to tell you the version of the story I know how to tell.
I'm one human being with imperfect knowledge as a point of view, so this story is not the
only story anyone could tell about it - not by a long way.
I could tell you a good version of one slice of this story because I was part of it.
I was at its heart, because, until last year, I was CTO of NPM Inc.
This gives me an expertise on the topic few people in the world have.
It also comes with a point of view, and I'm going to invite you to keep my point of view
in mind as you hear this story.
You're in this story.
Yes, you.
I bet you didn't know you were part of this story.
You will know why you're part of it, and you will know why your participation matters when
I'm done with this story.
It's a story about money, people who have money, and people who make money from open-source
software are not the people who - it's the story of an accidental decision that you made
without knowing about it, and one that I made consciously, and how that decision working
out today.
So it's a story about ownership, control, and their consequences.
It's also a story about power: who has it, how much of it you have, and what you can
do with it.
Are you ready?
[Cheering].
All right.
Here we go.
Do you remember Yahoo!
A story kind of starts with Yahoo back in its glory days in the mid-2000s.
JavaScript was the heart of a lot of JavaScript activity back then.
It employed a lot of thought leaders like Douglas Crockford, if it was pushing state
of the art forward.
It might not have had a good business plan but it did have a good tech stack.
It had a package manager called YPM and it did neat things.
People who used it liked it.
About at the same time all this was happening, and, you know, action and Yahoo, JavaScript
was itself kind of taking off, and in an interesting way, thanks to things like jQuery, and browser
makers deciding to adhere to a common spec for once.
JavaScript exploded.
Server-side JavaScript was starting to be a big topic, and it was here in 2009, ten
years ago, where Dahl announced node.js and that turned out to be the JavaScript platform
we wanted on the server.
Now, the early Node community was a happening place.
It was a scene.
It swept up a whole bunch of interesting people from systems programming and web programming,
and people who really enjoyed being at a bleeding edge ecosystem where a whole lot of stuff
hadn't been invented yet.
Several of the people involved early on figured out earlier on that package management would
be a pretty great thing, and there were a bunch of package managers, plural, being written
- yeah, more than one.
One of these people was a Yahoo employee.
He was super into Node.
He quit his job so that he could write something inspired by the Yahoo package manager but
for node.js, and this particular programmer was clever in a couple of really useful ways.
For one thing, he got really super involved with Node, and this let him work on the Node
side implementation and his package manager at the same time.
He could make installer work right, and he really championed the common JS implementation
that Node has.
He did other stuff to beat other package managers, going around to other managers to support
pull requests of his rather than the other one.
Pretty smart.
His was good enough and useful enough, the right solution, supported well enough so that
it won, so that the node package manager, or npm, was put along with node rather than
a third-party thing that you downloaded.
Official status granted by the Node Project continues to today.
Right about this time, bought Node from Dahl for a paltry amount of money.
You notice we're already in interesting economic territory.
The man who invented node.js, the tool used by everyone in this room, and millions of
people daily to develop JavaScript, made a few tens of thousands of dollars from it.
Whoever is making money from Node today, it's not its inventor.
He did at least make a living after selling it, because he was hired, which is pretty
good, and the joint also hired the programmer who made Node's package manager, but, important
plot point, he retained ownership of it.
He retained ownership of the npm domain name and source code.
He didn't turn it all over to it Joyen the way the Node source had been.
This decision matters later, so, in the it.
The open source doesn't mean open ownership or control, it means you get to read the source
for something.
And the ability to read part of the source from something doesn't mean you can change
that source.
It doesn't give you any control over it, what it does, or what it .... The story moved forward,
you've probably heard this part before, 2012, Dahl leaves the npm project.
Right up about here is where all of you start appearing on the scene, or some of you anyway.
You're JavaScript programmers.
You like writing JavaScript.
If you can write a tool in JavaScript, you will.
So you started writing JavaScript with Node, and you liked it.
Meanwhile, people like me, who are kind of mixed about JavaScript - don't tell anyone!
- I figured out that Node was handy for writing I/O multiplexing services and thought this
is fun.
As 2013 went on, more and more people got on the Node train and Node got popular.
It meant npm got pretty popular.
That's great.
Right?
Well, no.
Success is a catastrophe for a lot of projects.
It's a catastrophe you need to survive, and success for npm was a catastrophe.
Here's why: npm's package registry is centralised.
It is not just a CLI tool that grabs the code and puts it to to your hard drive and do modules.
The CLI probably is the least important part of the machinery despite how frequently you
interact with it.
Npm is most importantly to all of you a centralised package registry and a repository.
Right from the beginning, the registry was there running inside a Crouch DB database
on the same domain it is today.
Registry is just a list of all the packages you can install, their authors, anywhere names,
their versions.
The repository part is the part that stores all those packages in a centralised spot.
This is pretty great, because it makes installing them fast and reliable.
Someone is work on making that central repository zippy.
There's a lot to unpack there.
Centralisation is what we are talking about here, and centralisation has some advantages.
The npm registry is centralised.
It comes with usability wins.
You only need to go to one place to look for something.
That one place can enforce some rules about the things you're looking for that they all
look the same, that they provide the same kind of information, maybe they don't even
vanish on a whim when their owner gets board.
Centralisation has advantages that matter to you.
I've been doing a Go programming lately, and it's weird.
It's very strange to try to find Go packages, because they're everywhere, and the only way
to find them is Google them.
You look at these old-fashioned lists of really exciting Go packages, the thing that Yahoo
used to do, like a hand-made list of things.
When I install these packages, I is that you will from GitHub repos I can just vanish.
So I have expectations that come from having used npm for eight years, and Go decent meet
any of those expectations.
The absence of a central registry for Go has helped me understand what NPM provides every
JavaScript programmer.
Centralisation is such an advantage that it is a trend.
Blogs were something you used to host on your own.
You used to buy your own domain name and spin up a server and host a blog.
Through the last ten years, there's been this big trend towards centralised hosting platforms.
You know, things that can provide a reliable place for you to put your blog, like MySpace.
Yes, Tumblr medium, social media centralised, Twitter and Facebook, and open source is even
centralised.
So, okay, npm is a centralised registry for the node packages.
In 2013, it wasn't great.
Why?
Downside of centralisation is that costs are costs are centralised.
Downside of npm's registry is that all that use centred on a single database with a ... inside
it.
Here's a fact of the world: servers cost money.
Who pays for them?
For years, Node manager ran on donated hosting.
It was written with help from some of the people involved in implementing CouchDB, and
it free loaded on a bunch of CouchDB hosting services, treated as an ad for Couch - they
continued to host Node's package manager, and then it wasn't so cheap.
Success, the catastrophe, is expensive.
You all started using Node and that ad stopped being cheap the other various lazy short cuts
in implementing the registry starting have an effect once the registry saw some real
use.
The registry was down more than it was up in 2013.
Npm needed money.
It needed a maintainer who didn't ignore it for a day job.
This is not a particularly new problem.
Every language ecosystem at some point if they have a centralised package registry also
has this problem.
Ruby Gems cost money to run too, they run on donations.
CPen, they solved their problem 20 years ago with a network of mirrors, a lot of smaller
language ecosystems, some by free loading on GitHub, public repos, like Cocoa Pods and
others.
What npm's owner decided to do was pretty novel: he decided to found a company.
This is possible because he still owned it.
He found his company, npm Inc, and he takes seed funding.
And here's our decision point: Node Project decided this was fine.
They continued to give npm special privileges something they bundle along.
I don't know if there was internal controversy about this because I wasn't part of it.
Node Project was entering its moribund period around this time, so maybe decision was made
through inaction, I don't know.
They continued to affirmatively decide that's what they want to do every year since then.
You decided this was fine.
You voted with your feet.
You kept using the npm registry.
But CJ, I hear you say, I wasn't around then.
You weren't around, then.
Then.
You inherited this decision.
You don't know it was a decision.
Npm is out there as a fun question fact of JavaScript life.
You might not have known it was a company at all, right?
At the time, it was pretty controversial president the company that had been hosting npm was
really pissed off about it.
They ended up raising a bunch of money the same time the VC money came in, and there
were lawyers involved.
I don't know much about this.
I just know that npm exited the node messily.
Later, npm exited Joyant's hosting because they were also fighting.
I don't know, money: it changes everything.
Friendships made when it is all just open source fun, end under the strain of competing
for dollars.
Here's another thing: I decided this was fine.
I decided to let JavaScript's language commons be owned by venture capitalists.
I didn't frame it that way to myself, though.
The decision I told myself I was making was the decision to contribute what I could to
making Node successful.
As a huge Node fan.
I really liked programming in Node.
I still do.
That was the first place I had ever participated in open source.
So, npm Inc is a company, has VC money and started hiring people.
The first person they hired at - I second hire was me.
I wanted to make it go better.
I told the story - I was told the story by the owner that we would to make it self-sustaining
take, and the servers would hum along happily dispensing packages for the masses forever
and every.
I ended up leading npm engineering team.
You know this part of the story.
Large numbers are very large.
You install lots of packages.
Npm was successful, it scaled, and Node exploded as a result.
You started using Node to do everything, and npm is now an unquestioned part of your work
flow.
You reinvented web development in ways you wouldn't do before npm was there, reliable,
providing shared code.
Lucky it's some kind of utility.
It's the highlight of an excellent career.
I'm still pretty proud of it.
Let's pause here.
We're at the zenith of node's package manager.
Let's talk about money.
I love money.
Why isn't Ryan Dahl living on a tropical island?
Why isn't James Halliday retired on a tropical island he lives on now?
Why isn't Dominic Tar living in a yacht instead of a sailboat?
Does he still live in a sailboat?
Why does Doug Wilson have a day job?
Do you know those names?
They're the authors of software you have on your laptops right now.
Software that is the beating heart of 1,000 programmes that business runs every day.
Every Fortune 500 company will is runs the software written by those people.
And dozens of other people who I don't have time to list who contributed packages to npm
in the early days, and do so even now.
Those people are not well think, despite the enormous value created by the software they
make.
Capitalism, yes, it's unfortunately, as you problem already know, capitalism is supposed
to reward people like them, but in practice, it doesn't.
Most of us give away the source without expecting we will make money of it.
Most people who named contributed to JavaScript commons without wanting their tropical island.
They might wish they had them but they didn't expect them.
Money was not on their minds.
That was back in the early days of Node when the contributors knew each other.
They were just exchanging gifts with their peers, fellow Node programmers.
All right, now here, I want to talk about the difference between the open-source and
free software.
You're aware of this difference.
It's the free software you install - the Gnu licence, like, aims to make you have to give
away the thing you make with the source code you've shared.
And over here, in Eric Raymond land, it goes a little differently.
We can argue about whether Stallman's Gnu licence achieves it or not.
I'm not going to join that argument right now.
I will point out that Eric Raymond's style free software, MST licence, and permissive
licence is almost certainly the kind of open source you practise.
You treat the GPL like poison.
You've chosen open source, not free software.
Capitalism freaking loves open source, let me tell you.
Companies get a lot of good stuff for free, and they have no requirements on them for
using it.
It takes it even further, I think by telling you that you have to do this get hired.
GitHub is your résumé, they tell you, and they stretch out their hand to take their
free software from you to build things with.
Dominic Tar gives away pull stream and every Fortune 500 company uses it, and he doesn't
get compensated.
This is a reality.
I don't think I can fix that.
You notice that there is a person in the story that didn't give his stuff away?
That's pretty smart, right?
He's the one who didn't give away his intellectual property is the one who will make a pile of
money from this.
He planned ahead in the ways that other people didn't.
Of course, he's not actually going to make most money anybody makes from npm, because
the people who are actually going to make money from npm are the venture capitalists
who invested in it.
People who truly do well in this story are the people who had money to begin with, people
who had nothing to do with JavaScript, effectively only our language commons.
What does our language commons - what is our language commons?
Shall I define that?
Let's do it.
Commons in English means the resources available to everybody.
It's like natural resources, like the air we breathe, or a field that we all share to
graze our sheep - shared.
For us in the JavaScript community, the language spec is our commons.
That's owned by an organisation that is set up to allow JavaScript's users to all co-operate
and design and build it.
TC39 has done pretty well by JavaScript.
All of our shared code is part of our JavaScript commons.
The registry that lists all this shared code is part of our commons.
The connections we use to share code in it is part of our commons.
But all of that is owned by a VC-funded private company.
This is the thing we as a group have given away.
Ryan Dahl was here last year, and he had something interesting to say.
It's unfortunate that there is a centralised privately controlled, even, repository for
modules.
I saw that, I wanted to argue with him about centralisation, but I had to agree with his
comment about private control.
What are the consequences of private control?
Why do I think that's a problem?
Well, none of us have any input into registry policies.
What gets a package removed from the registry?
What is acceptable to be on the registry.
How are disputes about package names resolved?
What happens when two people fight about a package name and they can't make up their
minds about it?
You letter Left Pad?
I bet you remember Left Pad.
The publication policy didn't exist before Left Pad happened because it didn't occur
to npm, a private institution, to think about the use case.
They don't act proactively to solve problems until they exist and are in their faces.
This is northerly.
You don't want to have to deal with something until you have to.
You have no input into registry features.
You might have a wish list, but you don't get it.
There's no way for you to contribute.
There's no way for you to say you demand something.
You want package signing?
Good luck.
You're not likely to see it.
Maybe if a major security incident happens or a major public outcry happens, you'll get
it, but it would have to be an existential threat.
And note that hear I'm talking about the registry, not the client.
The registry is closed source, the policies that regulate it are not open to our influence.
The NPM CLI is open source but it's unimportant.
The key building blocks that you would need to write your own CLI are all open source
and not under npm's control.
But a third of you use another client to react anyway.
The management of our commons is opaque to us.
It will be opaque to you until the company that owns it has a financial incentive to
change it.
You don't know what is happening with your package data.
You have to trust it.
There is no trust without a accountability, and we have no - we as the JavaScript have
no way to hold npm Inc accountable.
When I was there, I could tell myself that I trusted myself and my team, and I knew our
intentions were so good, and motivations were good, with we have to have 2FA.
This was not a good answer.
I was wrong to have relied on that answer, because you had no way to hold me accountable,
and test that I was trustworthy.
Oops.
Am I saying that npm is evil?
Moo.
Ask a different question.
It's a private entity in control of our commons.
It's not good or evil.
The question of its benevolence is the wrong question to ask.
Npm is not a benevolent institution.
It can't be one.
The possibility of it being one is the ended the day they took VC funding.
That decision took it into a financial instrument.
I mean something very specific when I say that.
Financial instruments are contracts about money.
They're widgets that can be traded.
Npm Inc, the thing that owns our language ecosystem, is a thing that might as well be
a collection of pork bellies as far as its owners are concerned.
They make contracts with each other and trade bits of it around.
It's a means for turning money into more money.
It is important to keep this in mind as you evaluate your interactions with it, and your
interactions with the people who represented it.
This means to look at incentives.
Money is a lot of incentives for a lot of actors in this story.
Companies do not love you.
Not even companies that make something you like.
That phrase is a marketing message designed to get you to mistake the financial instrument
for something that might be your friend.
That marketing message is powerful.
You've got a cuddly mascot and a great stickers, and a red emoji heart, and you're on board,
right?
Npm does not love you.
It can't love you.
It's a Delaware corporation founded as a financial instrument intended to turn money into more
money for a handful of people you don't know.
And here's the other thing: nobody believes that message any more.
When I first knew I wanted to talk to you all about this, instead of just whispering
in a corner with friends, I thought I had an uphill battle to go.
The VC package managing company was - I said that message, what I meant by it was
that I, CJ feel affection for you, stranger.
I kind of do.
But, you know, it was true.
I did.
I still do.
But I don't think anyone can stand up in front of you now, after the PR events of the last
few months and think that npm loves you.
It's burned a lot of goodwill in the last couple of months - by choice, deliberately.
They made the choice, they double-downed on it, and here we are.
You're willing to listen to this now.
So, how did we get there?
It's 2018, packages flow like water.
You just - you don't you care where they come from.
They cost money, even if you're not paying for them.
Npm has been spending venture capital money to deliver you all those packages for free
this whole time.
Venture capitalists eventually want their money back.
They want that 10x return on investment.
VCs want you to go big or go home.
That means they want you to burn your cash or succeed or fail.
VC money is interested in returning the investment.
There's nothing wrong with that, in my view.
Some companies are shaped like VCs want to shape.
I don't think that's really the problem.
The problem is that our language ecosystem is there.
Remember, there are obligations of the people who own npm, not to us.
Make money or raise money by telling a story about making money to raise money ... money.
It's all about the money.
So in 2018, they hired a new CEO.
It's pretty interesting.
Thank God - yeah.
The culture.
The culture that they exported as their marketing message started to look a little threadbare
right around then.
Everyone, including me, learned it was just a marketing message and actually not deeply
held values.
Npm's PR troubles are known to all of you as a result.
We are a community that enjoys drama - have a some drama.
Even if it had somebody who is a good actor at its head, there would be - that person
would have a big problem to solve, and here's the problem: centralised registries are expensive.
The part where the packages are stored are expensive.
It controls all JavaScript development, because every single one of you willingly proxies
all of your JavaScript development through it.
The data, the data gathered from your usage of it, and you heard the talk earlier today,
that's the value.
Every time you run an audit, npm looks at your package lock, chock-full of information
about what you've been up to.
Yes, you know what they say about when you're not paying for the product, you might be the
product?
Yeah.
It's there.
The thread is dangling over your head right now.
I think we're in a situation right now that is not going to last very long.
The npm hasn't fully had its reckoning with its investors or with us.
It's had lay-offs but we don't know has going on inside, but the point is, the ground has
shifted under our feet a little bit.
Anyone who wasn't asking if npm is stable is now asking that.
We know that it doesn't love us and it doesn't love its employees, either.
This is not our own option.
The story didn't have to go this way.
People chose it, and here we are.
What are we going to do about it?
You, you sitting in this audience right now: what are you going to do about it?
Are you going to do nothing?
That's easy.
We made our community decision in 2013, and we're stuck with it.
We wait for npm Inc to fail - not if, when - a nasty couple of months replacing the registry.
I don't like this answer.
Imagine npm selling to somebody we don't like, corporate pirate, someone that takes over
adversarial and shakes them down for pocket change, someone who doesn't have an incentive
to keep the registry up, threatens to take it down to see what we would do about it.
That's possible, frankly, because npm's board of directors hasn't done a very good job.
Maybe we will be saved by Microsoft!
[Laughter].
I've been on the internet since 1987.
I remember when Microsoft was actively evil.
I believe they might be again.
Certainly Google is not benevolent, purely benevolent actor right now, even though they've
got fountains of money.
I would like to avoid having to come here ten years from now and make the same talk
again.
I think in the end, I agree with Ryan Dahl.
JavaScript's package registry should not be privately controlled.
Centralisation is a burden that will lead to private control because the servers cost
money and that's just a fact.
But I think if we load to many people, we can share this burden.
Who knows, from once it's under the burden, npm can be a normal company and try to make
a profit for itself.
Do you think that's impossible?
Do you think npm's entrenched?
I'm not a big fan of - and I don't like the do-nothing answer.
The other confession I make is that I believe in open source despite everything.
I think it's good for us as human beings to give things away to each other, and I'm at
peace with the idea that some corporation is going to make some pee from my work.
So, Chris Dickinson, follow him on Twitter, we have an announcement: we would like to
give something away to you all right now.
I would like to introduce you to Entropic, a federated package manager!
[Cheering and applause].
Yes!
All right.
It comes with its own CLI.
It offers a new API for publication.
You heard Kat talking about tink earlier.
This was a dream Chris Dickinson and I have had for several years now, and we offer that
file-based API.
It's federated.
You depend on packages from other instances, you mirror your dependencies so you remain
self-sufficient, requirements list, we Dockerised it, you sign in with your GitHub account.
Don't use it yet!
[Laughter].
The project is only a month old because Chris only escaped about a month ago, so that's
when we started it.
It's not ready for anybody to use, but people developing it, but, we do want your help.
I hear QR codes are hip, so I've got one for you all.
On GitHub, it's on open source right now.
Tell me you can get there and see it.
We've got a huge list to contribute to right now.
I've just up a lot of your time.
I'm going to run down very quickly what my goals are, why I did this.
I want to prove to you all that we have power.
We don't have to sit here and wait for fate to come to us.
We can be optimist ic, proactive, and do something.
You have power.
Second, Chris and I will among a handful of human beings who actually deeply understand
the problems that a language package registry has to solve.
We spent years thinking about this and what we should do.
I think that expertise is needed by our community right now.
We want to share it.
We choose to give it away.
We will be working with the Open JS foundation on this.
We are giving you the gift of our expertise and work.
Third, I think it's right that this pendulum is swinging away from federation.
I think move away from centralised solutions is good.
The last decade has been about consolidation, and I think the coming decade is going to
be federated.
It's going to be cheaper for us all.
Yes!
Yes, take it back!
It's yours!
It belongs to you!
[Applause].
Let's make a different decision: we made this decision in 2013, and it made sense at the
time, it's time to make a different one.
Entropic is the kick-start Chris and I will giving to this problem.
There's a lot more to say.
There's a lot of work to do on it, and I want to get to the point where I can tell you all
to use it may be next year this time.
It's time to move with our feet again.
You are good, may amazing people, capable of building amazing things.
Most of you are much smarter than I am.
I want to hand this over to you.
We should not be owned by a single company.
Our commons should not be owned by a single company.
We can do it.
This is love from two human beings capable of love from us to you.
What happens next is up to you.
Thank you.
[Cheering and applause].
Go do it.
Fork it now!