6 ms·

The hard truth is that open source software is the wild west; if you don't have a thick skin, you'll have to grow one, and if you can't grow one, they'll just e

by mahouse 11y ago

The hard truth is that open source software is the wild west; if you don't have a thick skin, you'll have to grow one, and if you can't grow one, they'll just eat you alive. Eventually you realise it's either you or them. That's when you've mastered it.

vkou 11y ago
This seems like a non-optimal equilibrium. Any way we disrupt that?
- J_Darnley 11y ago
  First step: get everyone to agree that they must never use linux again. It is made by a Bad Person so it is a Bad Thing and anyone who uses it supports the Bad Person and becomes a Bad Person themselves.
pflanze 11y ago
I'm wondering why you're getting down votes. Maybe someone who down votes could explain? I'm a freshman when it gets to maintaining an open source project (just started with one, it's on my user page), and am very interested in getting savvy on how to feel or judge things, hence I found your image welcome. I wouldn't know whether it's wrong or right, but I find it welcome as it's strong, i.e. sticks around, my mind will compare it to real-world situations in the future and figure out over time whether it's correct. I think what the image points out is that you're ultimately doing your own decisions, for your own benefit, and not doing it for anyone else unless you decide so. And I'd think that this is correct: I did believe that open source is something to improve the world, and standing against closed-source software, and hence if I saw that open source software was lacking, it felt wrong, and led me in a couple occasions to give strong statements to open source developers, which I guess were received exactly like the negative, demanding inputs criticized here. So I'm guilty of this myself. So now, while I realize that the other side (the user) wants to be appreciated, too and not doing that will lead to project failure (both of which might be the reason leading to the down votes here), it would be wrong to let that suck out your energy. And the picture of the cowboy primarily needing to survive himself seems fitting. (PS.: I think what I'm advocating to accept here is more "either you or me are going to survive", and not so much "either you or me are going to die". These are not equivalent if there's a middle ground where there are other outcomes than dying. Anyway, the OP points out even better solutions anyway, too.) (Edit: thanks for the replies, I've appreciated them all.)
- mahouse 11y ago
  I'm getting downvoted by people who don't like the reality, I guess; I'm just pointing out the truth as I have experienced it myself. About what you said, most projects, if not all, will be struck by hordes of users asking for all kinds of things, some of them will be reasonable, some of them will not. Never hesitate to say NO to a user, even if he's written a patch already. Never merge things out of pity. Another important thing: if the project grows large enough, it'll attract collaborators that, despite their best intentions, screw up often. Obviously you must be friendly towards them, but be sure to make it clear when they've screwed up. You will also find collaborators that not only screw up often, but also defend themselves and think they are always right. Do not hesitate to make it clear that that's not the place for such behaviour and if they don't improve kick them out, outrightly or in a subtle way.
  - pflanze 11y ago
    > Do not hesitate to make it clear that that's not the place for such behaviour Perhaps the point (of the cowboy image, perhaps with regards to self reliance) is that you can tell them that you decide, since you started the project and are still its leader, and that since you think the contribution is screwed up, you won't merge it. This explanation does not contain anything about the contributor's behaviour. Well I guess I don't know about what that part of your example entailed :) Anyway, thanks for the comment!
  - x0x0 11y ago
    It's not an immutable rule. Communities get the behavior they tolerate.
  - ZenoArrow 11y ago
    > "I'm getting downvoted by people who don't like the reality, I guess; I'm just pointing out the truth as I have experienced it myself." I don't doubt that this is what you've found to be true, but I agree with how nostrademons put it, it's self-fulfilling. Open source projects don't have to be adversarial, though some of them certainly are. What sets the projects listed here apart from the more adversarial projects? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10642500 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10642500

by mahouse 11y ago

vkou 11y ago

This seems like a non-optimal equilibrium. Any way we disrupt that?

J_Darnley 11y ago
First step: get everyone to agree that they must never use linux again. It is made by a Bad Person so it is a Bad Thing and anyone who uses it supports the Bad Person and becomes a Bad Person themselves.

pflanze 11y ago

I'm wondering why you're getting down votes. Maybe someone who down votes could explain? I'm a freshman when it gets to maintaining an open source project (just started with one, it's on my user page), and am very interested in getting savvy on how to feel or judge things, hence I found your image welcome. I wouldn't know whether it's wrong or right, but I find it welcome as it's strong, i.e. sticks around, my mind will compare it to real-world situations in the future and figure out over time whether it's correct. I think what the image points out is that you're ultimately doing your own decisions, for your own benefit, and not doing it for anyone else unless you decide so. And I'd think that this is correct: I did believe that open source is something to improve the world, and standing against closed-source software, and hence if I saw that open source software was lacking, it felt wrong, and led me in a couple occasions to give strong statements to open source developers, which I guess were received exactly like the negative, demanding inputs criticized here. So I'm guilty of this myself. So now, while I realize that the other side (the user) wants to be appreciated, too and not doing that will lead to project failure (both of which might be the reason leading to the down votes here), it would be wrong to let that suck out your energy. And the picture of the cowboy primarily needing to survive himself seems fitting. (PS.: I think what I'm advocating to accept here is more "either you or me are going to survive", and not so much "either you or me are going to die". These are not equivalent if there's a middle ground where there are other outcomes than dying. Anyway, the OP points out even better solutions anyway, too.) (Edit: thanks for the replies, I've appreciated them all.)

mahouse 11y ago
I'm getting downvoted by people who don't like the reality, I guess; I'm just pointing out the truth as I have experienced it myself. About what you said, most projects, if not all, will be struck by hordes of users asking for all kinds of things, some of them will be reasonable, some of them will not. Never hesitate to say NO to a user, even if he's written a patch already. Never merge things out of pity. Another important thing: if the project grows large enough, it'll attract collaborators that, despite their best intentions, screw up often. Obviously you must be friendly towards them, but be sure to make it clear when they've screwed up. You will also find collaborators that not only screw up often, but also defend themselves and think they are always right. Do not hesitate to make it clear that that's not the place for such behaviour and if they don't improve kick them out, outrightly or in a subtle way.
- pflanze 11y ago
  > Do not hesitate to make it clear that that's not the place for such behaviour Perhaps the point (of the cowboy image, perhaps with regards to self reliance) is that you can tell them that you decide, since you started the project and are still its leader, and that since you think the contribution is screwed up, you won't merge it. This explanation does not contain anything about the contributor's behaviour. Well I guess I don't know about what that part of your example entailed :) Anyway, thanks for the comment!
- x0x0 11y ago
  It's not an immutable rule. Communities get the behavior they tolerate.
- ZenoArrow 11y ago
  > "I'm getting downvoted by people who don't like the reality, I guess; I'm just pointing out the truth as I have experienced it myself." I don't doubt that this is what you've found to be true, but I agree with how nostrademons put it, it's self-fulfilling. Open source projects don't have to be adversarial, though some of them certainly are. What sets the projects listed here apart from the more adversarial projects? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10642500 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10642500