Why not just let users run the web app locally? There's no reason it needs to be remote.
Also, the mere fact that it sends any data, no matter what you say it contains is a non-starter at many places. And even module names can contain proprietary data.
I can understand the frustration, but I think there are legitimate reasons to run this remotely.
Tach is an installable Python package, shipping a full web app would have to come in a separate form factor and has significant maintenance implications. Given we are explicit about the remote app before anything is sent, require explicit opt-in, and we provide usable alternatives locally, we prioritize shipping a useful graph experience that is immediately usable.
If you are at an enterprise that cannot tolerate this, then you can use a local viewer with either GraphViz DOT format or Mermaid which is generated by using `tach show` or `tach show --mermaid` respectively.
I appreciate the attempt but the reasoning of "it requires maintenance" is entirely moot. You have to do this regardless. Its just whether or not you publish it open-source. You are still saying, internally, this is good enough for customers, when you push it out.
This is a (very) thinly veiled attempt at a closed garden of sorts, IMHO. Its a "clean" excuse for not giving away the milk for free, but it falls short on actual reasoning.
Looking at the license (MIT) we already got much more than what we paid for and the authors don't "have to" do anything but accept thanks of those who chose to be grateful for software they got for free.
This. It's ridiculous how often people complain about the design of free software. If you don't like it, just don't use it! Use something else! Build your own! Or fork it to work in the way you described that you'd prefer - you can do that yourself if you really want since the source is available
It is totally valid to tell people not to criticize a project offered by someone who made it for their themselves or wants to offer the value to the public but doesn't have the resources to do everything perfectly. But this is not that, and I don't see a non-profit org behind it, so it appears to be something that is being offered on a quid pro quo basis. Thus we need to figure out where the value is being extracted and if the dev are cagey about it, that rings alarm bells.
The default of the command is to generate locally. They don’t need to open source an entire web app. It’s easier to deploy themselves then deal with the burden of open sourcing and maintaining.
This isn’t some conspiracy. It’s a tiny startup trying to ship something useful.
I think you misunderstand my comment. I was addressing whether or not it can be appropriate for someone to question an aspect of an open source project, and not whether this project was part of a conspiracy.
Since you’re being somewhat brigaded by the “everything local!” mob, I just wanna say that this all sounds completely reasonable to me. Some people hate being told that their demographic just isn’t currently being catered to exactly in the way that they want. I’m sure that these people working on things so utterly Top Secret can wait a while for your new little tool to support them. They’re just mad they can’t use it at Meta or whatever.
Also, the mere fact that it sends any data, no matter what you say it contains is a non-starter at many places. And even module names can contain proprietary data.