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

Open source is not about you (2018)

gist.github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 196 posts

Re: Open source is not about you (2018)

#91

Post by bigstrat2003 »

hinkley wrote: post #84

I don’t disagree with Rich Hickey a lot but this one grinds my gears: > All social impositions associated with it, including the idea of 'community-driven-development' are part of a recently-invented mythology with little basis in how things actually work, Open source is effectively a gift economy. And we actually talked about it being so in the late 90’s early 00’s. Gift economies are older than human civilization.…

No, he's completely right on that point. There's this weird misconception in the tech community that "open source" means "you'll accept my contributions if I send them". I've seen people try to argue (in complete seriousness) that SQLite isn't open source because the developers keep contributions private.

I don't know where the mistaken conflating of "open source" and "developed by the community" comes from, but it is mistaken, and Rich was quite right to push back on it.

Re: Open source is not about you (2018)

#92

Post by yunnpp »

bachmeier wrote: post #86

> Open source is a no-strings-attached gift, and all participants should recognize it as such. I've always felt this is incorrect. First, because lots of people use open source to further their careers, it isn't. Open source contributions are paid work if you benefit from them in any way. Second, if you use open source yourself, your work is no longer a gift. You're contributing back to the community you've taken fro…

Why is this down-voted? Everything we do in this industry rests upon somebody else's gift of free/open software, that is the reality of it. I do feel an inclination to contribute back however I can, even if it's just documentation, or submitting a (properly detailed) bug report, for precisely the reason described here.

Re: Open source is not about you (2018)

#93

Post by [deleted] »

hinkley wrote: post #76
dakiol wrote: post #42

> As a user of something open source you are not thereby entitled to anything at all I understand what the author means, but I think that in any human-2-human interaction, we are all entitled to at least basic courtesy. For example, if you show courtesy by contributing to an open source project and following all the guidelines they have, I think it's fair to assume that courtesy will be shown in return. I know that m…

There is not space in the collective consciousness for an infinite number of solutions to the same problem. I usually get downvoted for pointing this out but it explains why people shit on you when you start getting defensive about people calling your solution or attitude shit. Reasonable people won’t start a project in an already oversubscribed niche. So yes, it does matter if you’re doing more than the minimum. It’…

[deleted]

Re: Open source is not about you (2018)

#94

Post by jmchuster »

dakiol wrote: post #42

> As a user of something open source you are not thereby entitled to anything at all I understand what the author means, but I think that in any human-2-human interaction, we are all entitled to at least basic courtesy. For example, if you show courtesy by contributing to an open source project and following all the guidelines they have, I think it's fair to assume that courtesy will be shown in return. I know that m…

> I understand what the author means, but I think that in any human-2-human interaction, we are all entitled to at least basic courtesy.

This only holds up for the "small" number of human interactions the average person gets. If my neighbor comes and rings my doorbell to say hello, I'm fine answering and shooting the shit, maybe invite them in for a quick coffee.

If every 5 minutes a strange comes in and rings my doorbell, I'm not getting up and answering it. And some people visiting will get angry and start pounding on the door and coming to my window and pounding on it glaring at me inside. And say, hey, I drove all the way from hours away to come visit you, the least you could do is open the door and say hello.

For them, it's their first human-2-human interaction that day, with someone they slightly admire even, and they're expecting basic human courtesy. To me, they're just the 42nd doorbell ringer today.

Re: Open source is not about you (2018)

#95

Post by M95D »

zzzeek wrote: post #90
M95D wrote: post #75

This is the attitude that made me keep my patches to myself. Hey, you, FOSS maintainer, whoever you are: - If you make your project public, it means you want and expect people to use it. You could at least write some documentation, so I don't waste my time and then find out, days later, it isn't capable of what I need or I simply don't know how to use it. - If you set up a bug tracker, then at least have the decency…

> - If you make your project public, it means you want and expect people to use it. no, it doesn't, maybe I have a github project, I want to easily share it with ten of my friends for something, I don't particularly care if other people see it, so I make it public. That in no way implies I want random people to come along with bugs and PRs. > You could at least write some documentation, so I don't waste my time and t…

> no, it doesn't, maybe I have a github project, I want to easily share it with ten of my friends for something,

Then make it private.

> I don't particularly care if other people see it, so I make it public.

Yeah, I see someone else made the same argument. It's a reckless disregard of other people's time and nerves. Build labyrinths and scatter them around the internet. Leave manholes uncovered. Markov chains to trap humans. You could at least say it's not maintained - no, not in the disclaimer.

> maybe the author had time and energy to answer bug reports a few years ago and maybe right now they don't.

Then close bug tracker and post "Abandoned" on the front page.

> counterpoint, people who barge in on your project with huge PRs for features or changes that were not discussed at all

Then say so and then reject them. That's what PR review means. I don't have a problem with rejected PRs. I have a problem with ignored PRs.

Re: Open source is not about you (2018)

#96

Post by bcrosby95 »

hinkley wrote: post #76
dakiol wrote: post #42

> As a user of something open source you are not thereby entitled to anything at all I understand what the author means, but I think that in any human-2-human interaction, we are all entitled to at least basic courtesy. For example, if you show courtesy by contributing to an open source project and following all the guidelines they have, I think it's fair to assume that courtesy will be shown in return. I know that m…

There is not space in the collective consciousness for an infinite number of solutions to the same problem. I usually get downvoted for pointing this out but it explains why people shit on you when you start getting defensive about people calling your solution or attitude shit. Reasonable people won’t start a project in an already oversubscribed niche. So yes, it does matter if you’re doing more than the minimum. It’…

The biggest assholes in your example are the people saying "Fuck Timothy". It's also not my fault those people are assholes. If they don't like my party that's fine. If they say i don't have music or whatever that's fine.

If they tell me I don't know how to run parties and all parties need to have music and snacks or else its not a party I'm gonna tell them to fuck off.

Re: Open source is not about you (2018)

#97

Post by bigbadfeline »

ForceBru wrote: post #82
M95D wrote: post #75

This is the attitude that made me keep my patches to myself. Hey, you, FOSS maintainer, whoever you are: - If you make your project public, it means you want and expect people to use it. You could at least write some documentation, so I don't waste my time and then find out, days later, it isn't capable of what I need or I simply don't know how to use it. - If you set up a bug tracker, then at least have the decency…

Yeah, I didn't like that attitude either. > As a user of something open source you are not thereby entitled to anything at all. You are not entitled to contribute. You are not entitled to features. You are not entitled to the attention of others. You are not entitled to having value attached to your complaints. You are not entitled to this explanation. Sure, I'm not entitled to anything. At the same time, this text e…

Right, it sounds like "you don't matter to me", which I read as "Oops, wrong address, go find somebody else".

The bigger problem here is that the OP author is pretending to be a speaker for all open source, I guess there's no other way to justify the uncompromising attitude he somehow developed.

AI will undoubtedly change how OSS works, bot-submited PRs can be overwhelming, authors should not despair though, where there's a will, there's a way.

Re: Open source is not about you (2018)

#98

Post by awesome_dude »

shermantanktop wrote: post #56
dakiol wrote: post #42

> As a user of something open source you are not thereby entitled to anything at all I understand what the author means, but I think that in any human-2-human interaction, we are all entitled to at least basic courtesy. For example, if you show courtesy by contributing to an open source project and following all the guidelines they have, I think it's fair to assume that courtesy will be shown in return. I know that m…

You as a first-time contributor need to know that the large group of first-time contributors has a lot of poorly behaved people in it, and that the burden is on you to establish that you are not one of them. Trust is built through iterative exchange. This is Bayesian priors - default is average, and only moves on the introduction of new information. Lots of examples of this. In 1950's westerns, if a stranger comes to…

I'm not saying you're wrong - but I do detest that attitude myself

As you say, trust is a two way street, and first time contributors are being expected to trust that it's not personal when they are met with brusquerie.

I know it's hard when it's the 99th person and you've had to deal with 98 less than nice individuals, but defaulting to an abrupt or blunt manner does nobody any favours.

Re: Open source is not about you (2018)

#99

Post by rlnorthcutt »

blenderob wrote: post #71
rlnorthcutt wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Straw man + slippery slope. I never said that, or implied it. It would be dumb to say that someone who creates an open source project is at the mercy of the people who use it. But, many people have had the experience of dealing with loud voices in open source communities, and sometimes abusive voices. Or people who are pushing/promoting things that they want but are actually contrary to the goals and well being of th…

Yes, totally fair. I totally misunderstood your original comment. My bad and my apologies!

Wow - I really appreciate you taking the time to look at it again. My original comment was written quickly, and probably no where near as clear as it could have been.

I respect your willingness to modify your original stance upon closer examination. Non-ironic hat tip.

Re: Open source is not about you (2018)

#100

Post by wat10000 »

M95D wrote: post #75

This is the attitude that made me keep my patches to myself. Hey, you, FOSS maintainer, whoever you are: - If you make your project public, it means you want and expect people to use it. You could at least write some documentation, so I don't waste my time and then find out, days later, it isn't capable of what I need or I simply don't know how to use it. - If you set up a bug tracker, then at least have the decency…

I can't tell if this is satire or not. I fear that it's not.

"If you make your project public, it means you want and expect people to use it. You could at least write some documentation, so I don't waste my time and then find out, days later, it isn't capable of what I need or I simply don't know how to use it."

WTF? If I make it public it's because I think other people might like to see it. That runs the gamut from "this is a production-ready project that solves a major problem" to "this is useless but shows some interesting techniques you might like to learn from."

If you spent days fiddling with an undocumented project that turned out not to do what you need, I'm not the one who wasted your time. That would be you.

If you want to limit yourself to only looking at high-quality projects with documentations and active bug trackers and PR reviewers, go for it. That's probably a good move! But putting some source files on a web server does not imply any further obligation, in those areas or any other.

Post reply on HN