[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"$fs6w1m2g6u7w5":3},{"code":4,"message":5,"data":6,"timestamp":39},10000,"success",{"full_name":7,"position":8,"description":9,"language":10,"stars":11,"forks":12,"stars_gained":13,"age_days":14,"hn_threads":15,"one_liner":22,"summary_md":23,"topic":24,"github_topics":27,"license":35,"homepage":36,"updated_at":37,"history":38},"HeyPuter\u002Feverything",2,"We're rebuilding and open-sourcing the world’s software from scratch.","JavaScript",3827,480,337,11,[16],{"id":17,"title":18,"points":19,"comments":20,"posted_at":21},50075719,"Puter's Mission to Open-Source Everything",8,0,"2026-10-13","An MIT-licensed monorepo rebuilding everyday proprietary apps — spreadsheets, docs, chat, notes — as web tools for people who want self-hostable alternatives.","## The problem\nSmall teams and individuals who want an open, self-hostable stack for everyday work end up stitching together a dozen unrelated projects — one for docs, another for chat, another for spreadsheets — each with its own data model, auth story and release cadence. The Everything Project proposes a single monorepo where those apps are rebuilt from scratch as web applications under one MIT license, so the pieces at least share a home and a licensing story.\n\n## What's different\nMost open-source office alternatives are mature single-purpose projects that grew up separately, with their own storage formats and collaboration models. Everything instead bets on breadth and uniformity: a catalog that maps each app to the commercial product it replaces (Spreadsheet to Excel, Teamchat to Slack, Photo Studio to Photoshop), all in JavaScript and all in one repository. The trade-off is the reverse of the incumbents': you get consistency and a permissive license, but not decades of file-format compatibility, plugin ecosystems or enterprise features. The README is essentially a directory of links and does not describe architecture, shared runtime or how data moves between apps.\n\n## Who it's for\nDevelopers and tinkerers curious about a permissive, unified alternative stack, and people evaluating whether a given app is close enough to the commercial tool they'd otherwise pay for. It is not for teams that need round-trip fidelity with Office or Photoshop files, nor for anyone replacing production collaboration infrastructure today — the README gives no evidence of that level of completeness.\n\n## Cost of adoption\nRequires Node.js 22.12 or newer; each app is run separately with `npm install` and `npm run dev` inside its own directory under `src\u002F`. The license is MIT, which is permissive, but maturity is the real cost: the project is days old, several \"Try it\" links point to a placeholder link-status note, and the README carries no architecture, roadmap or stability information. Treat every app as unproven until you run it yourself.\n\n## Verdict\nThis is a brand-new project, not an established one: created 11 days ago and already around 3.8k stars with roughly +344 per day, it is clearly riding a spike in attention rather than a track record. The Hacker News reception was thin (one thread, 8 points, no comments), so outside interest is not yet broad. The ambition is large and the MIT license is genuinely useful, but the repository currently reads more like a manifesto and a catalog than a usable software suite. Give it time and watch whether individual apps ship releases and documentation before committing anything.",{"slug":25,"name":26},"productivity","Productivity & Utilities",[28,29,30,31,32,33,34],"adobe","cad","microsoft","office","photoshop","saas","spreadsheet","MIT",null,"2026-10-24T22:35:58Z",[],1792898402]