231–240 of 408 posts
Agree 100% with the maintainer, read some of the comments on /r/rust and on Github, I haven't seen a more rude sanctimonious community in my 12 years programming. Holy shit! Rustaceans my ass! From now on Rudeaceans.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's absolutely correct that people don't have obligations simply by putting some code online. But they do have obligations when they start telling people to use their code. We understand this as humans even in realms far from open source: if I see you approaching a door, I am under no obligation to open it just because I'm physically able to, but if I open a door for you, I'd better hold it until you're finished wal…
He held the door open for a lot of people. Some people spit at him as they walked through. He doesn't want to hold the door open any more, he's done it enough. He didn't sign up to be a doorman for life.
I don't understand why the author felt so defensive about accepting packages. As far as I can tell, they've always had this attitude.
Why even make a project open source if you don't want to consider patches? The whole idea is that even if you think a thing is boring, someone else may not and they'll do that work for the community.
Weirdly, this is now some kind of grave affront to the maintainer who appears to take the idea that a compiler check could be added to their general framework as an insult.
Whatever drawbacks Actix may have had, this entitlement has gone too far. There is no defensible reason to tell someone "never write Rust again" because you don't like the code they're making available to you. We need something to remind us that we should be civil and grateful for FOSS contributions. I recently saw a talk by Atwood about good discourse and how you should remind people of your values before they write…
>I recently saw a talk by Atwood ... Interesting, if you could share a link or some other source me and my dinner would appreciate it :)
https://www.heavybit.com/library/video/civilized-discourse-b...
I would advise people who decide to embark on large, hard projects like this to stop making them free. Make the source open if you want, but charge money. Either for the product, or for support requests, something. This not only filters out entitled assholes, but it gets you money, money that you can maybe use to pay people to help, or at least to buy a beer.
I feel that for certain projects like vendor API integration libraries, opening up the source for all to use freely is the best path. But for others, where years of intellectual property and personal development exist predominantly within the code itself... I think I want to keep this kind of code to myself for now.
If you never reconcile your reasoning and expectations with your community then they will deduce reasoning and expectations that you never implied. This maintainer wanted to produce a popular piece of software not to contribute to the Rust community, or because he wanted to make lives easier. This isn't the attitude of someone who is trying to improve his skills or challenge his knowledge of Rust. He obviously didn't do it to get rich. I believe he made actix-web to get famous. He wanted blind recognition for being selfless. He wanted a community of docile dependents who sit up late on GH hitting the refresh button waiting for his next push. He seems to have only wanted to make a product that people revered. When that didn't happen because he never reconciled his goals with the communities expectations he took his ball and went home. "What??? No fame? No glory? Criticism!?!? Fine, no soup for you."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Obviously being vocally abused is not OK no matter what the victim has done. This is a big problem and I think Steve's article that is currently on the top page of HN gives a good overview of that part of the situation. My problem with viewing all open source as a gift to the world, take it or leave it, is that when people create open source packages, market them as being ready for production use and as the best opti…
I strongly disagree, with extreme passion. They could have marketed it as the greatest gift to humanity for all I care. It's your responsibility to handle your use of code. Sure, you may find issue's in your dependencies, and you're welcome to submit a bug or provide a fix, but if you expect anything more than the code as it is, it's still your problem how to deal with it. The entitlement is astounding. A person prov…
What is also a in the realm of possibilities is that a project gets a bad reputation and for indirect effects or others, dies. That happened here. However, in the effects we saw here, while the people proposing patches and debating in a civil way about technical flaws (or at the very least widely perceived as such) were fine, the brigading was absolutely inexcusable, as well as the unproductive/nasty comments.
For context, this comes after yet another unsoundness bug has been found in Actix-web. Normally people in the Rust community don't get very worked up over these because we know that everyone makes mistakes, but the Actix project has had a consistent history of introducing unsoundness through the use of unsafe for dubious reasons like nebulous performance increases or bypassing Rust's safety guarantees (which is what…
sounds like the author had specific strategic vision - "push the boundaries" - which he clearly explained, and there are other people who don't agree with such an approach, both are valid positions in their own right, and instead of being jerks and trying to shove their approach down the project owner's throat these other people should have just started their own project reflecting their more conservative approach.
It is like those people who try to push Linus to use C++ and do other funny stuff in the kernel - one should go and read Linus' responses to the people like these.
http://harmful.cat-v.org/software/c++/linus
"Quite frankly, even if the choice of C were to do nothing but keep the C++ programmers out, that in itself would be a huge reason to use C.
[...] I've come to the conclusion that any programmer that would prefer the project to be in C++ over C is likely a programmer that I really would prefer to piss off, so that he doesn't come and screw up any project I'm involved with."
"Ok... So that was unprofessional. If you don't want to maintain a project anymore, you give it to someone else and link to that repo in your README. This just screwed me over big time." https://github.com/actix/actix-web/issues/1#issuecomment-575... These kind of entitled attitude is probably exactly why the guy just removed everything. More details / discussion here: https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/epszt7/ac…
It's absolutely correct that people don't have obligations simply by putting some code online. But they do have obligations when they start telling people to use their code. We understand this as humans even in realms far from open source: if I see you approaching a door, I am under no obligation to open it just because I'm physically able to, but if I open a door for you, I'd better hold it until you're finished wal…
Exactly.
Like it or not, there are implicit social contracts if you maintain OSS software.
Yes I've read the birdseed of the various licenses.
I know this will whip up the oft-suffering maintainers and developers in here. But this is the exact kind of trope that stymies wider FOSS adoption.
The artifacts of these little meltdowns are exactly the kinds of things your upper management will cite the next time you suggest using FOSS vs. whatever vendor they're about to push down your throat.
Ignoring security conventions, and then adopting a "take my ball and go home attitude" isn't a ringing endorsement for adopting FOSS, unless it's run by a large entity.
I'm not saying the author should have to endure abuse or harassment, but consistently pushing unsafe code into a web-framework, being cavalier about trivial and widely accepted coding conventions, and dismissing patches as "boring" is exactly how you end up with NPM Ecosystem v2
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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. It is quite useful, because the license is the legal document that comes included with the software, and that specifies what things you agree to if you use the software. And it explicitly specifies that you cannot assume an…
> Open source authors promised us nothing and owe us nothing There is such a thing as an implicit promise. A project which presents itself as active and maintained by a community does implicitly promise a certain level of attention by its maintainers.
Did you miss this part?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're right, it was unprofessional... but since the maintainer is not being paid this is not a professional project. It's a personal project. And this seems like a perfectly personal thing to do with something that's preventing happiness.
Well, it's easy to get confused when you look at the professional looking website with a well crafted logo, a promo list of features and a copyright notice from the "The Actix Team". The community page even says "We're a welcoming community so don't be afraid to engage.". Ouch!