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

We will ban you and ridicule you in public if you waste our time on crap reports

curl.se

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

551–560 of 653 posts

Re: We will ban you and ridicule you in public if you waste our time on crap reports

#551

Post by Rooster61 »

chowells wrote: post #540
nmz wrote: post #533

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the most used paid and proprietary software is windows, and its users do not matter at all to how it implements its features.

Users matter a ton to windows. Specifically, the users with a hundred thousand or more licenses. Their unhappiness threatens Windows' profits in a meaningful way. Why do you think all the new secure boot and TPM features were added to Windows 11? All that work wasn't free to implement. But big businesses really want that degree of secure fleet management, and they're the customers who matter. So going back to the GP…

I think it's clear the source comment was referencing end users. It's patently obvious at this point that a large number of people who directly use Windows are frustrated with it, and perceive it to be degrading rather than improving over time.

Re: We will ban you and ridicule you in public if you waste our time on crap reports

#552

Post by reneberlin »

A few weeks ago i saw a repo in Github that had closed the issue-board and explained the users: to move on to the discussions.

If the discussion leads to the insight, that this is worth a feature, the maintainer will implement it.

I think the same goes for PRs. If you think you have made something cool, then discuss it and offer your implementation and the maintainer makes it fit with you to integrate.

On the other side, if you want a feature it just doesnt have, simply forking it and updating from the source-repo is fair enough.

Re: We will ban you and ridicule you in public if you waste our time on crap reports

#553

Post by reneberlin »

mixedbit wrote: post #156

Long time ago Sourceforge and then GitHub promoted into the current default the model of open source distribution which is not sustainable and I doubt it is something that the founding fathers of Free Software/Open Source had in mind. Open source licenses are about freedom of using and modifying software. The movement grew out of frustration that commercial software cannot be freely improved and fixed by the user to…

I fully agree. The psychological burden is also high, what makes the maintainer feel miserable over time.

Re: We will ban you and ridicule you in public if you waste our time on crap reports

#554

Post by Arainach »

BugsJustFindMe wrote: post #537
nlawalker wrote: post #536

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is that the OP doesn't >lack awareness of other forms of capital , they're asserting that those aren't sufficient on their own , and that one of the reasons for that is the risk that stems from stepping down being something that you can fail at in the first place, with the consequences of cementing a reputation of "being bad at being a person" regardless of anything that's happened to that point. You don't h…

> My point is that the OP doesn't >lack awareness of other forms of capital, they're asserting that those aren't sufficient on their own OP said "it should be paid" because "it is a job", and so the rejection of that claim is two-fold: 1) Uncertainty in the expected value of payment does not change the fact that it's payment, 2) Payment in units other than dollars is still payment. If I get paid in bitcoins, the bitc…

> Payment in units other than dollars is still payment. If I get paid in bitcoins, the bitcoin market could completely collapse before I cash out. It's not different than that.

I can't pay my rent or my server bills in "prestige". Entirely different.

Re: We will ban you and ridicule you in public if you waste our time on crap reports

#555

Post by redeeman »

GaryBluto wrote: post #357
bob1029 wrote: post #170

This note isn't going to stop even 1% of the jackasses who would have submitted AI slop. There are much better ways to communicate the intended message. This comes off as childish to me and makes me think that I'd rather not contribute to the project.

> This comes off as childish to me and makes me think that I'd rather not contribute to the project. It's unfortunately the new normal, with FFmpeg's core team acting similarly. No doubt the result of what is considered socially acceptable expanding in ways it probably shouldn't.

that is a view many hold, until its their own time being wasted. Consider the responsibility these people have and take on their shoulders, only for a bunch of idiots to consider their AI slop worthy of pissing up and down their face. Most of them probably even know its just AI slop spraying spree

Re: We will ban you and ridicule you in public if you waste our time on crap reports

#556

Post by zahlman »

mixmastamyk wrote: post #465
mixedbit wrote: post #156

Long time ago Sourceforge and then GitHub promoted into the current default the model of open source distribution which is not sustainable and I doubt it is something that the founding fathers of Free Software/Open Source had in mind. Open source licenses are about freedom of using and modifying software. The movement grew out of frustration that commercial software cannot be freely improved and fixed by the user to…

I don’t agree with this newer idea that has arisen that FOSS authors are “victims.” It’s up to you to set boundaries (or prices) and communicate them, like an adult. If one is still rude and entitled then ban them from the repo, or let people fork, but not before looking in the mirror first and reflecting at your own behavior. (I’m trying to imagine folks painting xfree86 maintainers as victims back in the day when x…

> I’m trying to imagine folks painting xfree86 maintainers as victims back in the day when xorg forked them for intransigence. The point is disagreements happen, deal with them.

... Did they try anything as petty as the xorg maintainers are nowadays?

Re: We will ban you and ridicule you in public if you waste our time on crap reports

#557

Post by zahlman »

mixmastamyk wrote: post #475
otikik wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think "we will ban and publicly shame you if you waste our time" is a very clear and adult boundary.

It could be a childish overreaction. See this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46718635 As always it depends on the circumstances, but should default to quietly closing with WONTFIX. Others have said Daniel is typically helpful and respectful so there we go.

The point is to deter further contributions of the same form, including from other users.

Re: We will ban you and ridicule you in public if you waste our time on crap reports

#558

Post by mnkv »

emmaviolet wrote: post #391
normie3000 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen this - it's tiring even at low volume. Goes something like: Someone creates a garbage issue. Someone else asks to be assigned. Someone from the project may say "we don't assign issues" (this step has zero effect over later steps). Someone else submits a PR. Maybe someone else will submit another PR. Maintainers then agonise how they can close issues and PR(s) without being rude or discouraging to genuine ef…

GitHub PM here working on how we can make this problem feel better for maintainers. Really appreciate how tiring this can be, especially when even low volume is sustained for many months. Would love your thoughts on some of the things we're thinking about: - Would it help to disable all PRs? All non-contributor PRs? - Would a "close as admin" button help address the issue of not wanting to be rude or discouraging? -…

My ideal is copilot that would evaluate the PR against some basic guidelines that maintainers write down.

And perhaps a way to filter PRs to just contributor PRs would be easy to implement and pretty useful

Re: We will ban you and ridicule you in public if you waste our time on crap reports

#559

Post by thtmnisamnstr »

freakynit wrote: post #126
causalscience wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Indian students Is this cultural? I ran a small business some years ago (later failed) and was paying for contract work to various people. At the I perceived the pattern that Indian contractors would never ever ask for clarifications, would never say they didn't know something, would never say they didn't understand something, etc. Instead they just ran with whatever they happened to have in their mind, until I cal…

Indian here (~15+ years in tech). I've seen this behavior a lot, and unfortunately, I did some of this myself earlier in my career. Based on my own experience, here are a few reasons (could be a lot more): 1. Unlike most developed countries, in India (and many other develping countries), people in authority are expected to be respected unconditinally(almost). Questioning a manager, teacher, or senior is often seen as…

> 1. Unlike most developed countries, in India (and many other develping countries), people in authority are expected to be respected unconditinally(almost). Questioning a manager, teacher, or senior is often seen as disrespect or incompetence. So, instead of asking for clarification, many people just "do something" and hope it is acceptable. You can think of this as a lighter version of Japanese office culture, but not limited to office... it's kind of everywhere in society.

I was a manager at Deloitte in their tech consulting practice. I led fairly large teams of devs based in India. This is very true, and it takes a lot of time and trust-building to overcome. Making Indian devs, especially early-career ones, comfortable enough to oppose something or offer feedback is non-trivial, and often Indian engineering managers make it more difficult. Overcoming cultural hierarchy is hard.

Re: We will ban you and ridicule you in public if you waste our time on crap reports

#560

Post by wt__ »

pixl97 wrote: post #453
Cort3z wrote: post #364

I wonder if there is a way to blanket prevent these types of problems. Possible solutions I can think of: - Require an account with a paid service. Fix = require money - Require an account verified with real ID/passport etc. Fix = link to real person - Automated reply system to "waste tokens" if it is an AI that is responding. Fix is increased cost of spammer. - Have some kind of "vetting system" where you get on an…

I've thought about this some and there are benefits and detractions in the processes. First requiring a deposit system. This might work in the sense that someone dedicated can put down $5 and report a bug, and even if it's not a bug but their work is legitimate they get refunded at the end of the process. - This doesn't scale well globally as $5 is nothing to me, but significant to someone that lives in a place almos…

Could it actually be significantly lower than $5? Isn't the real benefit not the money, but that the payment creates a bit of friction plus a paper trail tied to an individual?

You could then build a reputation system, much like a spam blocklist, using some sort of hash of the payment details.

Post reply on HN