61–70 of 91 posts
> That’s not empowerment – it’s fragmentation > This isn’t resilience, it’s entropy > That’s not openness, that’s abdication > Just fork it” hides power, it doesn’t challenge it > is not about obedience to maintainers. It’s about stewardship of commons. > the goal isn’t endless new projects. It’s shared infrastructure It's Not A Blog Post — It's Moralizing Slop
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I rarely see good faith engagements being immediately shut down with "just fork it" (you'd never accept issues / MRs!). Instead it's usually used as a last resort when the "exploiter" doesn't get their way and starts whining about it. If a change is proposed that's completely counter to a community's stated values, then I guess "fork it" is a more appropriate immediate response, because it's hard to see how such a cl…
> Instead it's usually used as a last resort when the "exploiter" doesn't get their way I am not saying the phrase can't be used legitimately. Like the article's author, I just think it's often used in a way that isn't. Perhaps we're sampling from different areas of open-source culture, but when I think specifically of HN, I think just-fork-it style responses of the kind that the author is criticizing are common. > A…
My point was that a community is members + values + practices + other stuff. In the case where one member who wants to upend the values and practices of an existing community, "just fork it" is an entirely reasonable response.
But hey, it's telling that the author places stewardship and branding before functionality when talking about reasons to fork.
> Don’t like how it’s run? Do something different. Don’t like the branding? Change it. Got a better idea? Implement it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
that would turn it into a witch hunt drama post. it's good that this sort of thing wasn't included.
> it's good that this sort of thing wasn't included. Is it good that the article has inspired mostly "the author is wrong" comments, more so than even the usual for HN?
The blog post makes a lot of arguments, that sound like they might be good. Only until you try to apply them to reality, when they fail. So yes, it's a good thing that examples that would encourage the debate to shift from critiques of the faulty arguments, to heated exchanges over internet drama requiring popcorn.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree it’s often used to shut down discussion, but most often I’ve seen it when a contributor is losing an argument (their PR isn’t getting merged, or their feature request is rejected, or their bug is marked wont-fix) and they don’t agree. “Victim blaming” is an odd phrase here. Could you clarify what you mean?
Sure. As background, when power is misused, you'll often find somebody immediately showing up to explain why it was the fault of the person harmed. In the US, for example, this happens basically any time a cop kills somebody. In analyzing the situation, the agency of the person with power is minimized or ignored; the agency of the person harmed is maximized. Open-source project are often run as little fiefdoms. Power…
Is power concentrated? What power do maintainer of FOSS projects have over people who would like to use that project? How can they compel people to do what they want as it relates to the project?
> It's a drive-by response to shut-down a complaint in a way that treats the complain as illegitimate, suggesting that person is wrong for wanting something different from what's on offer.
It can't possibly be suggesting that the person is wrong for wanting something different. The "drive by", "fork it" comment is saying. If you want something different, then make the different thing exist, no one will be able to stop you from making the thing that you want.
Unless you feel that the different thing is the person who is complaining, is entitled to having other people do what the complainer wants, instead of what the maintainer wants?
On the internet; if you wanted to suggest that someone's complaints or suggestions are illegitimate, you wouldn't say "fork it" you would say, "no, that's stupid, you're stupid, how could you suggest such a dumb, stupid, crazy, insane thing?!" surely followed by a series of extra expletives, or angry rage posts.
Or the just fork it comment is from a maintainer. Who has decided that they do not want the suggested changes. In which case, it's still not saying the changes are illegitimate, it's saying that the maintainer objects to them; so they're offering the only remaining solution for the complainer to get the changes they want.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it's good that this sort of thing wasn't included. Is it good that the article has inspired mostly "the author is wrong" comments, more so than even the usual for HN?
If the author fundamentally misunderstands the social and technical implications around the topic. Then yes, it's good that all the comments are correcting the misunderstandings of the post. The blog post makes a lot of arguments, that sound like they might be good. Only until you try to apply them to reality, when they fail. So yes, it's a good thing that examples that would encourage the debate to shift from critiq…
You present this as a hypothetical, but your next paragraph appears to take it as a fact.
I do not make such an assumption, which is why I think clarification would be useful rather than just a distraction.
So what is the solution? Is the author demanding that people work for them for free to do the sustainability for them? Because that sure sounds like the only way to "resolve" the complaint. "start treating it as what it often is: a refusal to do the harder social work in #FOSS" Your ending is missing something... "a refusal to do the harder social work that I want you to do in #FOSS". But I didn't promise that. Nobod…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree it’s often used to shut down discussion, but most often I’ve seen it when a contributor is losing an argument (their PR isn’t getting merged, or their feature request is rejected, or their bug is marked wont-fix) and they don’t agree. “Victim blaming” is an odd phrase here. Could you clarify what you mean?
Sure. As background, when power is misused, you'll often find somebody immediately showing up to explain why it was the fault of the person harmed. In the US, for example, this happens basically any time a cop kills somebody. In analyzing the situation, the agency of the person with power is minimized or ignored; the agency of the person harmed is maximized. Open-source project are often run as little fiefdoms. Power…
I do agree that “just fork it” is a flippant and pretty unhelpful thing to say, but just because a piece of software is open source, that doesn’t necessarily automatically mean that its development should follow the designs of a committee of its users.
You are absolutely correct that often, open source projects are indeed run with the maintainers exercising absolute control. I think this is where the tension comes in, because sometimes, folks expect that to be different, and approach the project with a sense of entitlement that somehow the project should change to fit their needs.
“Just fork it” is a way of saying “if you need it to fit your needs, feel free to take what we’ve done so far and add what you need, but we aren’t going to”.
The author’s core argument seems to be summarised here: “In social terms, it’s the equivalent of saying: “If you don’t like society, go start your own civilisation.”
It’s not at all equivalent though. It’s more like “I invited everyone round for dinner, and I don’t want my house to smell of fish, so I’m not cooking fish. If you want to cook fish, you can borrow my pans, but invite everyone round to your house instead.”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
in 30+ years of software development i've never heard "just fork it" or "you're welcome to fork it" used as an encouragement and i've heard it as a dismissal countless times. the article is spot on, and your interpretation of the described real-life situation is a rosy-tinted hypothetical at best.
It's dismissive because most of the requests open source developers get need to be dismissed. " Where can I send some cash for your hard work " is much rarer than " Here's my very complex edge use case that I need to support ASAP, I think it's quite shameful you don't support this already must not take you more than 5 minutes, come on people do it already my clients are waiting ".
"It may be open source, but that doesn't mean that it is afraid of money."