121–130 of 365 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks, that is indeed not the greatest of comments.
[flagged]
This is a weird definition of "personal", like PGP kicked his dog or something. The arguments he makes against it are detailed and the agreement of most working cryptographers, even if they don't agree with his specific deprecation schedule. Some people would call that "good engineering".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've blocked many of the people that called for Peter's ban on Twitter. I don't want to be on their radar or a target of some sort of witch hunt. I consider myself a nice person and not inflammatory/offensive, but I'm a belt and suspenders type of person. It's more important that I can submit an issue on the tracker than interacting "socially" with people who have a higher chance of ostracizing targeted individuals.…
Why were people calling for Peter's ban? I'm having a hard time imagining behavior that is so toxic that it merits a ban when "publicly advocating for banning someone from the community" is apparently fair play.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
TL;DR version. Go package management was quite poor for many real use cases outside Google, so the community railed around many competing proposals, and when it appeared there was a clear winner, the Go team came out with their own solution instead. This after kind of supporting the ongoing community efforts.
This is actually one of the reasons I trust the Go project is in good hands. The Go leadership has smart engineers, with good taste, willing to say no. The Go module implementation and version selection mechanism are better than what the community had converged on. Go has demonstrated that its governance model is capable of making better decisions than a pure democracy. This is not the case for most open source proje…
I left a job and came a few years later, and the Go code all still worked under 1.19.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> personal vendetta This is a weird definition of "personal", like PGP kicked his dog or something. The arguments he makes against it are detailed and the agreement of most working cryptographers, even if they don't agree with his specific deprecation schedule. Some people would call that "good engineering".
Look, you can make solid arguments till you are blue in the face about why PGP is unclean and unfit for modern cryptography. And you can be 100% right. But that doesn't mean people who disagree are wrong. There are 100% valid arguments and use cases for PGP too. It takes a mature personality to understand this nuance. And to understand that sharing a mic drop piece about why PGP sucks, getting your security buddies to laugh with you, and then trying to rip it out of existence is incredibly short sighted, ill mannered, and not in the least bit “good engineering”.
> It should not be necessary to fetch the same git module up to 2,000 times per day. Holy cow Google! Wouldn't it behoove us to check if any changes occurred before downloading an entire repo?
I don't understand why they have to do a fresh clone every time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think Google should DDoS noone. Not everyone until they opt out.
But it’s not Google DDoSing them, it’s every user downloading packages. Without the proxy it would just be millions of users hammering their servers. Edit: Uh okay, if it's not user traffic then why wasn't the "don't background refresh" not an option?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I was also taken aback when Peter Bourgon, a great programmer and contributor to the go ecosystem was banned from all go channels. Bourgon was frequently helpful and great, but also frequently rude, condensing, dismissive, and generally just unpleasant. I've seen this countless of times first-hand on Slack, Reddit, and Lobsters. I specifically stopped interacting with him long before he was banned. Whether he's a g…
> Whether he's a great programmer/contributor not isn't really important here. I don't see why not. Personalities fall on a broad spectrum. Still seems strange to me that the recent broad pushes for more inclusiveness, including neuro-atypicality, does not cover people that inconvenience you personally. > that would chase people out of the community with his behaviour [...] but it did make the Go community a better p…
I am one of them. I've seen other people claim the same. I did not keep a list, nor did I keep a list of all of his posts that I found egregious, and I don't really feel like spending a lot of time crawling through all posts to find them, so I guess this is all I have.
It's hard to get "hard evidence" for these kind of things in the first place. Most people just disengage and don't come back. The best I know of is "Assholes are Ruining Your Project"[1] from a few years back. It would be interesting to check similar numbers for Go and other projects. I'm not sure if it's easy to get these kind of numbers from e.g. Slack or Reddit though.
[1]: https://www.slideshare.net/dberkholz/assholes-are-killing-yo... / https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZSli7QW4rg
> total exile is a big hammer that should be used more judiciously.
It wasn't the first time he was banned, but I'm not privy to the exact details on this. Was total "total exile" proportional? I don't know: obviously I didn't see everything. I just wanted to say he didn't "just" get banned over a minor thing, but after many years of problematic behaviour that had been raised plenty of times.
From the GitHub issue, by a Googler: > For boring technical reasons, it would be a fair bit of extra work for us to read robots.txt […] This is coming from one of the biggest, richest, most well-staffed companies on the planet. It’s too much work for them to read a robots.txt file like the rest of the world (and plenty of one-man teams) do before hammering a server with terabytes of requests. If this is too much for…
I don't have any particular affinity for Google, but they're still a business and they're already developing the Go language (and relevant infrastructure) at their own expense. It's not like the Go team at Google has access to the entire Alphabet war chest like your "biggest, richest, well-staffed companies on the planet" suggests.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Go since inception has always been well funded. It is authored by some of the biggest names in programming and they are on staff at Google. This is not a side hobby. Not sure why you're suggesting that Go is lacking in resources.
Yes, Google staffs its Go team, but the original comment invokes Google's vast wealth as though its entire market cap is available for the development of Go, which is of course absurd. Google probably spends single-digit millions of dollars on Go annually, and it seems they've determined that supporting Drew's use case would require a nontrivial share of that budget which they feel could be spent to greater effect el…