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

171–180 of 196 posts

Re: Open source is not about you (2018)

#171

Post by wat10000 »

hinkley wrote: post #138
wat10000 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I sing in the shower all the time. I'd rather have my fingernails pulled out one at a time and the video sold to psychopaths than go to an open mic night or participate in a talent show. I know what I am and I know the degree to which people suck. Don't walk into abuse teeth first and then make a surprise Pikachu face about it.

You’re right, but for some reason I keep coming back here anyway.

Re: Open source is not about you (2018)

#172

Post by palata »

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…

> This is the attitude that made me keep my patches to myself.

That's your choice. Now if you open source your patches (in a fork, or in PRs to the upstream repo), someone other than the maintainer could benefit from it. So it's still helpful.

> If you make your project public, it means you want and expect people to use it

No. I benefit from others open sourcing their code, so I open source mine when I can. Because if nobody does it, then I don't benefit from it. But I don't care if people use it or not.

> You could at least write some documentation, so I don't waste my time

No. You are responsible for your time. If it takes you days to realise that you struggle understanding what my project does, that's on you. I am not responsible for you wasting days.

> If you set up a bug tracker, then at least have the decency to answer bug reports.

No. If you report a bug there, it can be useful to someone other than the maintainer, so it's still worth it.

> but at least you could give

I gave you a whole project that you apparently find useful, and all you have to say about it is "at least I could give more"?

> If you open it up to pull requests, it means you want people to contribute

No! Again a PR is a way to share a patch. Even if the maintainer never even looks at it, it may be useful to someone else.

> If you can't do at least these things, just say it's abandoned on the front page and be done with it.

I added a licence that explains what you should expect. I don't know of a single popular open source licence that sets any of the expectations you have. All they say is that you can reuse the code under some conditions.

Re: Open source is not about you (2018)

#173

Post by palata »

bigbadfeline wrote: post #97
ForceBru wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

> I guess there's no other way to justify the uncompromising attitude he somehow developed.

I disagree. When someone open sources code, they give away some of their work for free. That's all, and that's nice.

I really don't get how so many people think that if you give away some of your work for free, then you must give even more work away for free because they consider it "basic decency".

Re: Open source is not about you (2018)

#174

Post by palata »

M95D wrote: post #120
ragall wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Then make it private You don't get to decide that. > It's a reckless disregard of other people's time and nerves. Build labyrinths and scatter them around the internet. Leave manholes uncovered. That's a *you* problem, because you have wrong expectations. > Then close bug tracker and post "Abandoned" on the front page. You don't get to decide that. > Then say so and then reject them. That's what PR review means. I…

> [...] you have wrong expectations. I did. (Past tense.) I'm calibrated now. > You don't get to decide that. You're exactly right. I only get to decide what I do with my own toys. And I've decided I won't waste any of my time. If you (plural) can't write a one line answer to a bug report or click a reject PR button, then why should I put any effort? Isn't it nice "git clone" was invented?

> If you (plural) can't write a one line answer to a bug report or click a reject PR button, then why should I put any effort?

You wrote a PR because you benefited from source code that somebody on the internet shared for free, and wanted to share that work for free as well. See the PR as just one way to open source your patch. You could put it on your blog, in an email list, or keep it in a fork.

By opening a PR, you make it visible to other people who also benefit from the project and who may be interested in using it.

> then why should I put any effort?

Something I really want to say about this: if you decided to open a PR to an open source project, it is very likely that you put less effort into your PR than the other put into the open source project. But they gave it for free without complaining. You don't have to do it, but you can. And you will still have put less effort into it than the author.

Re: Open source is not about you (2018)

#175

Post by palata »

jaredcwhite wrote: post #79

I don't know why people keep sharing this. It's highly offensive and inflammatory. Plenty of open source projects consider themselves a community which welcome newcomers, take governance seriously, and ensure that even if suggestions or contributions are rejected, it's done in a thoughtful and considerate way. Acting like a jerk isn't a blueprint for how to be a good maintainer, it's how to be a jerk. And this "us ex…

> Plenty of open source projects consider themselves

I don't think that the article is incompatible with that. If you benefit from an open source project, that's good. If you benefit from more (a community, documentation, support, ...), that's even better! But you are not entitled to any of that.

> And this "us experts vs. entitled users" mentality is cultural poison.

I can't say what the author's mentality is, but after a lot of open source, my opinion is this: users of open source code tend to not understand that they are not entitled to anything at all. I don't say it in a bad way: they just aren't.

If you read the discussions here, it's obvious: many users of open source genuinely believe that it is not enough to share work for free: if one feels like sharing their work for free, they somehow "should have the decency to share even more work for free" (like documentation, support, reviews). But that is wrong! Again:

- If someone shares code for free, it's nice.

- If someone shares code for free, and documents it for free, and reviews PRs for free, and offers support for free, it's even nicer.

That's all there is. Maybe that someone is an asshole. You don't have to like them, you don't have to use their code, you don't have to engage with them. It's not a good thing to be an asshole. But still, you are not entitled to anything. Just take whatever you want from what is offered to you, and don't complain about not receiving even more.

Re: Open source is not about you (2018)

#176

Post by palata »

If someone gives ice cream for free in the street, we don't say "you should have the decency to provide chairs and tables so that we can enjoy our ice cream", do we?

Open source users have to understand that when they benefit from an open source project, it's like receiving a gift in the street. You don't get to ask for more: either you accept the gift, or you don't. If you go an complain because they should have a vegan option or different flavours, you are the problem.

Re: Open source is not about you (2018)

#177

Post by raincole »

jaredcwhite wrote: post #79

I don't know why people keep sharing this. It's highly offensive and inflammatory. Plenty of open source projects consider themselves a community which welcome newcomers, take governance seriously, and ensure that even if suggestions or contributions are rejected, it's done in a thoughtful and considerate way. Acting like a jerk isn't a blueprint for how to be a good maintainer, it's how to be a jerk. And this "us ex…

> I don't know why people keep sharing this.

Because:

> It's highly offensive and inflammatory.

We're talking about the internet, pal. It can be traced to How To Ask Questions The Smart Way. "Hackers" normalized the idea that if you can code you don't need basic decency and manner.

Re: Open source is not about you (2018)

#178

Post by notepad0x90 »

throwaway150 wrote: post #167
notepad0x90 wrote: post #165

if you publish something to the public, you are responsible for it to a degree. You can't just say "i'm not responsible" and avoid responsibility. "I put rat poison in candies and put it outside my door for halloween, but it had a sign that says 'The owner is not responsible for any harm or effects resulting from consuming these candies'" , see how silly that sounds? If you advertise your software as intended to do a…

> if you publish something to the public, you are responsible for it to a degree. Have you read the open source licenses? They say the exact opposite.

I believe I've addressed those licenses multiple times in my comment. you're not responsible for the support of the software, at the same time, you're not free of all responsibility for it either (regardless of what you say in your license). A license is not a contract either. there is a reason even eula's sometimes require you to actually scroll through them before you can hit accept. and even then, eula's have been thrown out of court plenty. "I'm not responsible" does not absolve of you of responsibility, you don't get to decide that, laws decide in court. but in terms of ethics, it's even more dire, if you know what impact your action or inaction will have, legalese can hardly excuse ethical obligations.

Re: Open source is not about you (2018)

#179

Post by bigbadfeline »

palata wrote: post #173
bigbadfeline wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

> I guess there's no other way to justify the uncompromising attitude he somehow developed. I disagree. When someone open sources code, they give away some of their work for free. That's all, and that's nice. I really don't get how so many people think that if you give away some of your work for free, then you must give even more work away for free because they consider it "basic decency".

> people think that if you give away some of your work for free, then you must give even more work away for free because they consider it "basic decency".

I didn't say that and I have no moral objections to the hardline attitude you seem to like, I respect that choice.

However, we have to be careful here, every author may have to take a firm stance from time to time, but that's not a good idea for all or most of the time, thus the latter isn't the best for everyone or every project, a lot of authors will be happier with different approaches.

Building a project is a lot about building a community around it and while I understand that not everyone can do it, I prefer those who can for completely rational reasons.

We've entered a time when OSS is becoming more important while the technical part of it is becoming less problematic, in this environment interpersonal skills grow in importance and it would be hard to manage a successful project without them.

Re: Open source is not about you (2018)

#180

Post by palata »

bigbadfeline wrote: post #179
palata wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I guess there's no other way to justify the uncompromising attitude he somehow developed. I disagree. When someone open sources code, they give away some of their work for free. That's all, and that's nice. I really don't get how so many people think that if you give away some of your work for free, then you must give even more work away for free because they consider it "basic decency".

> people think that if you give away some of your work for free, then you must give even more work away for free because they consider it "basic decency". I didn't say that and I have no moral objections to the hardline attitude you seem to like, I respect that choice. However, we have to be careful here, every author may have to take a firm stance from time to time, but that's not a good idea for all or most of the…

> Building a project is a lot about building a community around it and while I understand that not everyone can do it, I prefer those who can for completely rational reasons.

And I totally agree with that!

I am not saying that authors must take a firm stance. What I am saying is that users need to understand that they are not entitled to anything at all. It's all bonus.

I do help the users of the projects I maintain, as much as I can. Still they are not entitled to anything at all, I do it because I'm trying to be nice. And what I see is that it's not rare for them to not understand that; they behave as if it was my job.

Post reply on HN