3 ms·

I think I'm not making my point particularly well. It's also possible that my point itself is terrible, as evidenced by the raft of downvotes and the fact that

I think I'm not making my point particularly well. It's also possible that my point itself is terrible, as evidenced by the raft of downvotes and the fact that I was banned from posting this comment until hours later. I guess HN is only a place for popular opinions. Your Python example is undeniably progress because Python is still in wide use, a better example would be if you improved the performance of Dylan (or some other language that has long since fallen out of use). For your flooring example, imagine if you were contracted to work on someone's house and went, "Instead of using fresh floorboards, we decided to install floorboards that have been sitting out in the rain for 40 years because we enjoyed the challenge!" I've seen enough people make comments on how contributing to free software is a fight for the future of political and social freedom, since those who control technology will have a disproportionate impact on the systems of power and I find that hard to square with the attitude that free software no big deal and we should just have fun.

mwfunk 10y ago
It's because there is no consensus on any of those things, particularly political beliefs surrounding free software. The people who are saying free software is about scratching itches are generally not the same people who equate contributing to free software with fighting for the future of political and social freedom. You're not seeing contradictory positions because you're (usually) not seeing the same people state those positions. If it seems that way, it's because a given online discussion isn't a random sample of people's beliefs. For example, to someone reading Reddit or Slashdot (or HN sometimes, unfortunately), it's easy to jump to the conclusion that everything sucks and everyone hates everything. Post an article about Python, and all the comments will be about how Python is terrible and everyone should use Ruby (or whatever). Post an article about Ruby, and all the comments will be about how Ruby is terrible and everyone should use Python (or whatever). Read the same site for long enough and it will start to look like a mass of contradictions- "wait, everyone here said Python sucked before and I should use Ruby, but now they're all saying Ruby sucks and I should use Python?!?" But really it's just different people showing up to disparage whatever the topic of discussion is. I think it's just the nature of the medium that makes it really hard to gauge consensus within a community.

mwfunk 10y ago

It's because there is no consensus on any of those things, particularly political beliefs surrounding free software. The people who are saying free software is about scratching itches are generally not the same people who equate contributing to free software with fighting for the future of political and social freedom. You're not seeing contradictory positions because you're (usually) not seeing the same people state those positions. If it seems that way, it's because a given online discussion isn't a random sample of people's beliefs. For example, to someone reading Reddit or Slashdot (or HN sometimes, unfortunately), it's easy to jump to the conclusion that everything sucks and everyone hates everything. Post an article about Python, and all the comments will be about how Python is terrible and everyone should use Ruby (or whatever). Post an article about Ruby, and all the comments will be about how Ruby is terrible and everyone should use Python (or whatever). Read the same site for long enough and it will start to look like a mass of contradictions- "wait, everyone here said Python sucked before and I should use Ruby, but now they're all saying Ruby sucks and I should use Python?!?" But really it's just different people showing up to disparage whatever the topic of discussion is. I think it's just the nature of the medium that makes it really hard to gauge consensus within a community.