61–70 of 98 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. Disagreement, even a stronge disagreement with peoples opinions or actions does not require or even permit personal attacks. I do like changes done to audcity, but I dislike calling people "scumbags" or stuff like that.
I'd argue that the post contains no personal attacks, only descriptive terms.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I thought that telemetry was no big deal, and my response to you was "stop being such a cry baby and get a life", you'd probably and quite rightly take offence. In order to have a civil discussion about issues which can be emotive, one has to keep their feelings "in check" and put themselves in the other side's shoes. Even if you disagree, you don't need to resort to name calling.
>In order to have a civil discussion about issues which can be emotive, one has to keep their feelings "in check" and put themselves in the other side's shoes That's an excellent point. So, for example, in this vein, as a maintainer of a large FOSS project, it would seem to be prudent to not assume bad faith and block people without any comment when they ask a legitimate question.
I don't really understand the "Chinese government spyware" angle. Why would the Chinese government be interested in comparing what % of Linux users use the "reverb" function vs. Windows users?
Here's an interesting read on the subject of telemetry in Audacity: https://www.reddit.com/r/audacity/comments/of0b4s/breakdown_... Telemetry is used for the kind of boring stuff most devs would expect: reporting on exceptions so that bugs can be investigated. As the thread points out, Audacity is still open-source so you can audit the codebase if you'd like. There's certainly no "spyware" code in there that's loggin…
>I'm sure anyone who develops software understands why it's useful to get logs when your software catches exceptions.
For example, if we were to get into such a debate, my first question would be "Why does that have to be an automatic process, happening without the users knowledge or consent?"
But that's not really what I'm here for. You won't ever convince me that telemetry is a good idea. And you especially won't convince me that it's necessary.
I think it's probably not worth the time that it'd take to have that debate. You will not convince me, and I can't be bothered trying to convince you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd argue that the post contains no personal attacks, only descriptive terms.
Assuming you're referring to the same writing the parent is, "scumbag" is, at the logical minimum, both a personal attack and a descriptive term.
Is it a personal attack if I call Charles Manson a murderer?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>In order to have a civil discussion about issues which can be emotive, one has to keep their feelings "in check" and put themselves in the other side's shoes That's an excellent point. So, for example, in this vein, as a maintainer of a large FOSS project, it would seem to be prudent to not assume bad faith and block people without any comment when they ask a legitimate question.
In the same vein, it would be prudent not to assume bad faith on Audacity's part too. They've stated the telemetry is just so they can see how many users are using feature x, is feature y discoverable. I don't really understand the "Chinese government spyware" angle. Why would the Chinese government be interested in comparing what % of Linux users use the "reverb" function vs. Windows users?
Indeed. But that becomes difficult for me when I ask a legit question and am blocked for it. And then it gets much more difficult when I see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27905704
> Why would the Chinese government be interested in comparing what % of Linux users use the "reverb" function vs. Windows users?
Who knows? Personally I don't even really think it's about analysing the data, it's really just about having the data. Because "big data".
But from my perspective the philosophy isn't really about understanding why the data harvesters do what they do so much as protecting ourselves from the ridiculous number of possible misuses the data could have. It's the same principle that causes me to default to wearing a condom.
in https://github.com/audacity/audacity/discussions/889#discuss... you were not asking a question, but you were making an accusation.
again, your concern may be legitimate, the tone in which you voiced it was not constructive.
blocking you may be an overreaction, but it is no worse of an overreaction than making accusations and name calling instead of asking an actual question.
i don't even know what you are asking there, and what kind of answer you expect from the developers. i mean you are asking if anyone agrees with your interpretation of the lead devs statement. how does that help move the conversation forward? how does it help to resolve the issue?
and what response do you expect from the lead dev on that? "yes"?
there is no answer that would be satisfactory.
if we want to resolve this we, as concerned users, need to voice our concerns in such a way that the developers actually have a chance to make the necessary corrections and regain our trust.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Assuming you're referring to the same writing the parent is, "scumbag" is, at the logical minimum, both a personal attack and a descriptive term.
So "Blonde" is a personal attack too then, right? Is it a personal attack if I call Charles Manson a murderer?
the problem is that it is you who think they act like scumbags, and they themselves don't. by resorting to name calling, regardless of whether it is justified, you are closing the door to any sort of constructive resolution. in https://github.com/audacity/audacity/discussions/889#discuss... you were not asking a question, but you were making an accusation. again, your concern may be legitimate, the tone in which you…
You're assuming good faith where it's very clear that none exists.
> name calling
There's no name calling in there, only factually accurate descriptions.
> you are closing the door to any sort of constructive resolution
No. Let's be honest here: Muse did that when they blocked me initially. Then they did it again when they failed to answer basic questions put to them by the community. Then they did it again with the threats to the chinese guy. Then I did it once. Then they did it again when they blocked me for raising this issue.
> making accusations and name calling instead of asking an actual question.
What accusation did I make?
I've been over this supposed "name calling" already. I'll refrain from repeating myself.
> i don't even know what you are asking there, and what kind of answer you expect from the developers.
I've addressed this in my other comments here. I'd suggest you read them if you're actually looking for an answer to this.
> i mean you are asking if anyone agrees with your interpretation of the lead devs statement. how does that help move the conversation forward? how does it help to resolve the issue?
As I've already explained elsewhere, I was trying to gauge whether my interpretation was too paranoid. I was hoping that maybe the community might say "no, you're just paranoid". Instead the maintainer said in the strongest possible terms that I wasn't being paranoid enough.
It helps to move the conversation forward by helping me decide whether I'm just paranoid, and by helping to establish whether there is any hope for the audacity project, or whether a fork is absolutely necessary (turns out it is). All of those data points are useful for resolving the issue.
I will grant that perhaps I should have added a "legit question" or something in there since it would appear that most people incorrectly interpreted it as purely rhetorical.
But I'd also point out that the reactions from the community are overwhelmingly in agreement with my assessment.
> and what response do you expect from the lead dev on that? "yes"?
I've answered that elsewhere already, too. See my other comments.
> there is no answer that would be satisfactory.
Not from the dev. But I wasn't asking them.
> if we want to resolve this we, as concerned users, need to voice our concerns in such a way that the developers actually have a chance to make the necessary corrections and regain our trust.
Again, you're assuming good faith where it's very clear that none exists. I'd argue that if we want to resolve this we, as concerned users, need to support an audacity fork ASAP.
You have clearly not looked into this situation in enough depth. Muse have had and squandered multiple opportunities to regain our trust.
I'll be honest, if someone described me as "scumbags who have tried to turn into spyware" on the issue tracker for a project I maintain, I'd probably block them too. That kind of language really doesn't achieve anything, and any issue-tracker is better off without it.
Exactly. Disagreement, even a stronge disagreement with peoples opinions or actions does not require or even permit personal attacks. I do like changes done to audcity, but I dislike calling people "scumbags" or stuff like that.
That's like saying Nazi's were a bit naughty. Or that inside of an active star is lukewarm.
It's an outright lie. If anything GP was very temperate in their response.