Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Actix project postmortem

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 408 posts

Re: Actix project postmortem

#201

Post by XelNika »

ryandrake wrote: post #181
jeltz wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Judge for yourself: https://web.archive.org/web/20200116203731/https://github.co...

It seems like the better solution here would have been for the folks who wanted a fixed version of the software to create and maintain a "actix-done-right" fork themselves. This is what we all do in the professional world when a maintainer doesn't want to upstream critical patches for whatever reason. They're under no obligation to upstream your patch, but it's open source so you're not powerless either! Why so much…

Creating a fork is generally not the optimal solution. Both current and future users benefit from a patch, only those that hear about it benefit from a fork.

Now, in a case like this where the maintainer won't accept patches, yes, fork and move on would have been better.

Re: Actix project postmortem

#202

Post by Dowwie »

lidHanteyk wrote: post #196
Dowwie wrote: post #171

I've been using actix-web for my work for some time, contributing however I can while learning Rust and myriad other subjects. This was the third major public event involving controversial design and implementation decisions. A great number of people in the Rust community have refused to accept that not everyone subscribes to their ideology about use of unsafe. They've repeatedly tried to impose their values and prio…

I wonder to what degree the entire incident happened because Rust has unsafe-blocks.

the unsafe blocks were the catalyst

Re: Actix project postmortem

#203

Post by lifthrasiir »

toyg wrote: post #199
lifthrasiir wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course I don't disagree to you, I too think that that reputation is extremely hard to retain. However: 1. It seems that there are/were some language communities noted for their relatively more welcoming atmosphere. If small communities are usually great until it aren't, why don't we see many such communities? There seems to be some truth in this (albeit ultimately fragile) reputation. 2. For this reason, in order…

If a small community is great and the tool they push is valid, it will grow until it's not great anymore. Try mentioning any tool that has grown in popularity, stood the test of time, and still has an exemplary community. If a small community is great but the tool is not particularly good, they will stay small and simply get ignored. That's the average scenario for most languages not pushed by a wealthy vendor: you j…

> Meh, this is just the first of many to come, if Rust is to keep growing in popularity. It's on the same trajectory as Go, just a bit behind because it got usable a few years later.

If you originally meant that the Rust community is on the way of becoming less welcoming, well that works for me.

Re: Actix project postmortem

#204

Post by dangerface »

geofft wrote: post #194
dangerface wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> by opening the door you’ve signaled to me that I can walk through it safely. It was safe for me, is it safe for them? Thats not a judgment I can make on their behalf. A lot of people are complaining that the code is unsafe while the author thought it was safe enough for them. How many nines is safe, depends on the person. You should consider these things before using some ones help, not after, looking at the commen…

> A lot of people are complaining that the code is unsafe while the author thought it was safe enough for them. How many nines is safe, depends on the person. There's a very precise definition of this, it's not a matter of opinion. The code exposed a public API that was not marked "unsafe" that allowed you to construct (definitely intentionally, perhaps unintentionally) two mutable references to the same object. > So…

> The bug reporter actually looked at the code, determined it was unsafe, and reported a bug. That's what everyone wants an OSS user to do.

No again this is end user entitlement, you are not an end user you are a developer, if you discover a bug you are supposed to provide a patch to fix it not expect some one else to fix it for you.

If you depend on some one else's code it is your job to do due diligence on that dependency, no one did and it came back to bite them. People need to stop blaming every one else and learn from their own mistakes.

Re: Actix project postmortem

#205

Post by belorn »

telmo wrote: post #88
teddyh wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> These kind of entitled attitude If you offer code to the public – and present it as an active, dependable project – professional behavior is exactly what you implicitly promise and signed up for . If you can’t offer that (at any time, and for any reason), then you should immediately make that clear, front-and-center, to any current and future users. It isn’t “entitlement” on part of the users – the users are making…

> If you offer code to the public – and present it as an active, dependable project – professional behavior is exactly what you implicitly promise and signed up for. If you can’t offer that (at any time, and for any reason), then you should immediately make that clear, front-and-center, to any current and future users. As far as I can tell, this project was released under the Apache License 2.0. https://github.com/ac…

Lets compare it to an other type of volunteer based work, after school activity for kids. Some of those are going to be free, run by people who volunteer (usually other parents), with disclaimer policy that say that any responsibility is on the parent and no liability may be put on any of the volunteers.

Is there a social contract that put some expectations on the volunteers who are organizing the activity/event, and is that the definition of entitlement?

I would say there is such social contract, and when people expect too much of it there is also entitlement going on. Where the exact line goes is gray zone.

Re: Actix project postmortem

#206

Post by dangerface »

j-pb wrote: post #141
dangerface wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> has profited immensely from other peoples work Have they? how much $$$ profit did they make? You aren't paying for shit and yet you think they are making a profit and you are entitled to professional support? Wise up.

Making a profit != profiting. I profit from Clojure, Python and the linux kernel. Doesn't mean I habe an income from their existence. Nobody is arguing about professional support, but advertising a project and then deleting the entire thing to spite people is a jerk move. Ready up!

> Making a profit != profiting.

Thats exactly what it means.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/profit

I use linux to write python that I sell for a profit, I profit from these things, and I am happy to support these projects with my profits in return for professionalism I need to make a profit.

If I use them in a personal project I benefit from them not profit, and I certainly don't expect anything more than the benefit of not having to write that code, the rest is up to me.

This is pure entitlement.

Re: Actix project postmortem

#207

Post by endorphone »

Touche wrote: post #80
onli wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not true at all. You can pay for amateur bullshit, and you can get professional software and support for free (and free as in freedom).

You only have a right to complain about the amateur bullshit you paid for, though.

You have a right to complain about anything and everything.

For instance, I don't pay a penny for HN but I can complain that these discussions sometimes become self-congratulatory prattle where angry people carrying a giant chip on their shoulder posit absurd, completely ridiculous notions and they're supported in their group delusion by like-minded parrots. You don't have to agree with my complaint, but nor do I need your or anyone else's permission to hold it.

Re: Actix project postmortem

#208

Post by droitbutch »

Concerning is what message this sends to other OSS developers. One goes into F/OSS knowing full well there will be little rewards financially - but facing harassment or attacks on their reputation cannot encourage future projects.

Re: Actix project postmortem

#209

Post by CDSlice »

dangerface wrote: post #204
geofft wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A lot of people are complaining that the code is unsafe while the author thought it was safe enough for them. How many nines is safe, depends on the person. There's a very precise definition of this, it's not a matter of opinion. The code exposed a public API that was not marked "unsafe" that allowed you to construct (definitely intentionally, perhaps unintentionally) two mutable references to the same object. > So…

> The bug reporter actually looked at the code, determined it was unsafe, and reported a bug. That's what everyone wants an OSS user to do. No again this is end user entitlement, you are not an end user you are a developer, if you discover a bug you are supposed to provide a patch to fix it not expect some one else to fix it for you. If you depend on some one else's code it is your job to do due diligence on that dep…

Which is what the end user did! The maintainer rejected the patch as "boring" despite being given concrete example of how UB could be triggered and how the patch would fix it.

Re: Actix project postmortem

#210

Post by kjs3 »

teddyh wrote: post #197
telmo wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you offer code to the public – and present it as an active, dependable project – professional behavior is exactly what you implicitly promise and signed up for. If you can’t offer that (at any time, and for any reason), then you should immediately make that clear, front-and-center, to any current and future users. As far as I can tell, this project was released under the Apache License 2.0. https://github.com/ac…

> Other popular free software licenses (namely the GLP) have very similar clauses. What the license says and what image the project presents can be very different. Pointing to the license and reasoning that nobody has legally promised anything contractually is not very useful. > Expecting labour from someone without paying them is the very definition of entitlement. That’s a very mercenary view of the world. What abo…

> What about volunteer charity workers? Is it OK for them to just not show up whenever, just because they aren’t paid?

I have some friends whose profession is running charities (i.e. they actually get paid). Volunteers not showing up is exactly what happens, all the time. And my friends expect it, plan for it, because the volunteer is not getting paid to be there. Without that tangible incentive, a volunteer time competes for all the other intangibles competing for time (e.g. "I'm tired", "the kids need something", "friends are going to do something fun at the same time"). They build it into planning: some percent of the people who signed up aren't going to show up...if the weather bad, a bigger percent aren't going to show up. And so on.

They don't get all ranty or judgmental about it, they're just smart enough accept that reality and to plan for that eventuality. Just like anyone using an open source project without paying for it should be.

Post reply on HN