> On July 11, Mikeal Rogers created a private node-forward repository under his personal GitHub account to discuss the future direction of Node.js.
> Io.js continues the work that was previously being done by Node Forward in the node-forward/node repository. We hope to merge with the original Node.js project at some point in the future.
The "fork threats" started in 2013. 
It would have been simple to rename node-forward and keep it public, odd to blame Joyent for their choice to continue trademark infringement in private?
Previous to its release, io.js supporters spammed HN with multiple contentless links about its release.  No explanation to the community, raised a ton of questions and did not provide answers except within their insular circle.
Everyone is trying so hard to be part of something new and trendy, that they are blind to the facts in front of them.
I don't know the exact history of node-forward, but node-forward/node was only a piece of the node-forward repository. Early on it was my impression was that node-forward was just about collecting pain points in the node ecosystem and working towards those pain points (technical or not). The fork came later.
The fork threats you mention don't seem to have anything to do with node-forward. In addition, the article clearly states that "Roth told VentureBeat his company does not intend to fork Node" so these fork threats were not reality.
As for why they didn't rename node-forward/node? Well the previously linked article explains it quite well "We agreed to make the repository private in order to show our commitment to working with Joyent on improving Node.js."
They're sticking the strict semver with no tags, and explicitly wanted to abandon the 0.x version numbers, so the TC decided to do 1.0.0 as the first release but make it clear that it's not production ready.
Yeah, that's definitely a common reason. But I actually feel that it's one of the worst ones, and that kids would be much better off if the parents calmly explaining their decision to the kids in a positive way, thereby sparing them the pain, conflict, and at the very least unhapiness that staying together would likely bring.
Some kids need two parents more than others. My ex and I stayed together as long as we did in part "for the kids." He physically moved out about a month before our oldest turned 18. I think we did the right thing. I have health problems and two special needs sons. My oldest was quite challenging to raise. I have reason to believe that divorcing sooner would have been catastrophic and potentially deadly for one or more of us.
Since you cannot a/b test this in individual cases and can only say "people who left earlier have these corresponding average experiences or outcomes compared to people who stayed longer," I think it's a terrible disservice to many people with big life challenges to act like they were just being neurotic to stay as they long as they did.
Anyone thinking about "staying together for their kids" should talk to people whose parents divorced and ask them, "Were you happier before or after your parents split?" Cases vary, but the people I've had that conversation with have all said their parent's divorce was a relief.
I know there are people who claim "divorce as such" is bad for kids but I'm very doubtful about that. Divorce can be good or bad depending on how it's done, and how interested both the parents are in their kid's well-being.
My opinion -- as someone whose parents divorced when I was 5 -- is that merely staying together and being miserable isn't necessarily an improvement on divorcing, but getting into couples therapy and working through your issues is vastly better, for your kids as well as for you, than either a miserable marriage or an acrimonious divorce.
> This might seem naive, but honestly, why is this tolerable by so many people if the words are said on the internet rather than on the streets?
It isn't tolerated, but there is no recourse for response. Words said on the streets can be met with physical response, meaning directly removing the offending individual by force, or even physically harming them for their behavior.
Words said online can only be met by moderator response, which is always delayed, easily shrugged off and rarely an actual punishment.
I guess it's just concerning that the people who would say this kind of stuff online don't think about what they're doing. They wouldn't say it to someone's face, isn't it common sense that saying it over a tweet isn't that different?
The lines between Mafia and tech entrepreneurs are not very clear. Threatening competitors of legal action and keeping salaries of employees lower sounds more like a Mafia and less like a tech entrepreneur to me.
Just because the mafia doesn't simply break knees randomly doesn't mean that the threat of violence doesn't underpin the mafia's operations.
Yes, this includes targeted killings and violent extortion when required. Since this threat has been proven credible it's normally not required to actually break people; people simply give up before the tire irons have to be brought out.
Yes and large co bosses also behave in a similar fashion. Very often the kind of people Mafia deals with is the one that normally does not have anything other then their life to lose, but when it comes to large co bosses they are dealing with people who have too much to lose and hence a mere threat of legal action works even if that legal action is totally frivolous.
Ultimately, it is rule of man, since man can change the law.
However you call it, it is ultimately power (of man) that rules other men. Having to push it through the frictional and slow law process merely makes powerful men less powerful by the amount of the systemic friction. But the power gradients still exist and lead to the same consequences.
It merely prolongs a "i dont like him, behead him on the spot" into "i dont like him, make the state attorney accuse him of rape and murder, drag him through courts for 20 years and execute him". But the intimidating effect of power differences is the same. Rule of law is just the same ol rule of man cloaked into law.
In theory it could be rule of machine, if the justice system was composed of some kind of immutable law-enforcing robots, but you're right that in practice rule by law is just roundabout rule by man. Nevertheless, I'd take "dragged through the courts for 20 years" over "beheaded on the spot" any day.
That is true but then USA is a Republic where the rule of law matters more than will of the people. The only way people's will can be executed is by first making it a law, at that point all the people who have an interest against the law and unite and put a defense.
However there is a clever trick that the current President has used. Pass laws that are ridiculously long and large. When you pass a law that is 1000 pages long with another 1000 pages of appendixes, no sensible man can read and make sense of it and hence does not have much credible ground to oppose it.
"You think clause 9, subsection B poses a problem for X ? We have taken care of in clause 204 sub-claue 11c when taken into context of Annex. Z" a trick that was mastered by British and Indians.