421–430 of 555 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By that logic, projects like the Bohem GC is dead with only one full time maintainer. https://github.com/ivmai/bdwgc
If that were a project that needs to change as much as a full office suite, then yeah. It's not so much the absolute numbers as much as the relative numbers when compared with the amount of activity in Libreoffice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Does remote work cause the need for CoC? No, CoCs became a trend way before covid made remote work possible for the masses. They initially were demanded by project members after high-profile scandals of some kind, usually racist or otherwise discriminatory bullshit, sexual assault on conferences or bullying (Linus Torvalds for example used to be infamous for his language), and then other projects (or their members)…
I dislike CoCs because they aren't what they claim to be: Instruments to protect people. They are tools of power, ready to be used when needed to bully or oust someone. I therefore really don't understand the broad acceptance or even call for Code of Conducts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> All this does is creating unnecessary drama surrounding the Rust foundation. They are doing a fantastic job of creating drama all by themselves. I don't use Rust, but the constant childish bickering has turned me away from even caring to.
You can find no trace of childish bickering in the language, tools, libraries, or documentation. I'm not sure why people doing silly things off in the distance would bias you against using Rust, the use of which would not involve those people ever.
1 - I will inevitably end up on some mailing list or forums when researching libraries, correct way to do things, etc, where such people interact.
2 - As 'governors' of the language, how can I trust them to make sound investments in the future? I don't want to just learn a language and tooling as a one off.
3 - I don't want to support organizations that act this way, even if the language were perfect.
I don't see this as a real fork, the same way CentOS isn't (or wasn't) a real fork for RedHat, or Iceweasel wasn't a real fork of Firefox. This seems only meant to be work around the trademark. If all this does is to establish an other, non-trademark encumbered name you can use to refer to the language and the compiler than that could be good.
If that’s what happens, it’s not a great outcome. Foundation changes policy, restricting the use of a mark, to enormous opposition. After much dissent, the community responds by… ceasing to use the mark. That’s what they were asking for! The policy was bad. So is disinviting someone from a keynote address. The question is, do you want those things to be changed? Acceding to the demands and quietly backing away, no ma…
The iceweasel situation is different AFAIR - Mozilla (IMHO reasonably) wants binaries that are called Firefox to be unmodified Firefox to avoid confusion, bug reports etc. Debian didn’t want to respect that policy and this decided to fork and patch, renaming the project to comply with the policy. You can do the same for rust, but that’s not what crablang does, at least now.
It's a whitelabel copy based on policy disagreements, not unlike the "Iceweasel" (now Debian Firefox-ESR)[0] fork of Firefox. Just dawned on me after I wrote the first sentence that both actions targeted Mozilla offspring. [0] https://wiki.parabola.nu/IceWeasel_History
This means something about Mozilla policies/politics is going wrong.
Again.
I disagree with the general sentiment in this thread that this is a useless immature move. Sure, Crab will almost certainly not replace Rust, but that is not the goal. The ultimate objective is to influence Rust stakeholders' decisions. This is similar to a strike where ultimately your goal is not to destroy the company or to quit and leave, but to achieve better conditions. In both cases it sometimes works and somet…
cue node.js - io.js and gcc - egcs
For anyone critizing this: From the trademark bullshit to the conference drama, it's clear at this point that someone with influence in the Rust foundation is behaving like an asshole and damaging the project. That can happen in open source, see Stallman and others. It's also clear that others at the Rust foundation tolerate this behavior, downplay it, don't understand the impact, don't want to go against a "respecte…
The Rust Foundation (responsible for trademark drama) and the Rust Project (at fault for conference drama) are separate entities.
They both appear to share the same tone-deafness, though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Sure, Crab will almost certainly not replace Rust, but that is not the goal. I see it as: there's a finite amount of people who choose to dedicate their unpaid free time contributing to making Rust better (working on fixing bugs, new features, etc.) This seems like fragmentation which basically will slow down progress. Now, obviously the people who choose to dedicate their free time to open source software are enti…
You're making a huge assumption with the "unpaid free time" part of this. A lot of Rust development is driven by corporations who are directly paying engineers to work on it, and the rust foundation has a lot of money coming in via donations (literally millions).
I won't care why I'm reading about this until I can learn what I'm reading about!
The forker missed an opportunity to at least improve that, instead choosing a name that probably mostly subliminally enforces their dissatisfaction with Rust governance itself. Might as well have called it SheldonsSpot or OffMyLawn. I would have riffed the rust thing: Oxide or something similar.