3 ms·

It's kind of annoying reading people lecturing projects they clearly don't know the internals of on how much better their code would be if they did X. This app

It's kind of annoying reading people lecturing projects they clearly don't know the internals of on how much better their code would be if they did X. This applies not just to your comment here but to a ton of comments that pop up on HN all the time. Why not in Go? Why not in Rust? Why not in React and node and electron and why don't you use my library that's still in alpha? It's not OOP. You're not using tabs. MIT is too permissive. GPL is too restrictive. And obviously, this should be a set of tiny separate libraries, how dare you work on free software with different ideas than mine. I once found a project called Razor-qt. It was a desktop environment that included a bunch of interdependant binaries all under the same repo. I didn't like that very much. I joined it, worked on it, ended up leading the project and merging it with LXDE into LXQt. When came the time for the reorganization, I did push to create tiny components that "could be downloaded piecemeal and compiled independently". And we did end up going that route. You know what I didn't do? I didn't go on HN and complain about a project I didn't know the internals of at the time. But hey, maybe you know better. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

jcadam 10y ago
Ah, but did you force others to use your project? People find that sort of thing annoying at best, infuriating at worst, and they will tend to act out in various ways (to include finding fault with the thing they never asked for that's being shoved down their throat).
- scrollaway 10y ago
  All my life I've been forced to use things such as Windows, Flash, Skype and Photoshop. Forced because of lock-in strategies in a field with difficult alternatives. "Forced" is not a term that applies to systemd. People say "forced" because their distro adopted it - guess why their distro adopted it? Because they researched it and found it was good. That is the common theme. Nobody forced you. If you're an arch linux user, for example, one of the distros that switched the earliest, you'd have been more than welcome to discuss counter-points to systemd on the mailing list. Of course, most of those that attempted doing so were ridiculed out because in free software, or at least on the Arch ML, there is very little tolerance for bullshit. Most (MOST, not all) of the arguments against systemd are in fact bullshit. Hell, even on HN I've seen people crap on systemd because "it's lennartware". PS: To be clear, there is plenty wrong with systemd. It's far from perfect, it's still very young and I'm not particularly fond of its "all in one" tendencies myself. But most people in this thread have clearly zero ground to comment on its internals, yet many do.
  - rdslw 10y ago
    You're plainly wrong. 1) You write "Most (MOST, not all) of the arguments against systemd are in fact bullshit". 2) And yet you (wrongly) write "there is plenty wrong with systemd" To be in line with your 1) statement you should write 'it is only small things with systemd which are wrong. Because everything - MOST = small, and not 'plenty'. Yet you dont do, and you write 'plenty'. Why? Because you know, the moment you write 'there is only a small amount of things wrong with systemd' you will be easily challenged. So, from logic perspective, you're wrong and you contradict yourself.
    - scrollaway 10y ago
      If you're going to try to use "the logic perspective" and be hostile for the sake of being hostile, at least have the decency of running your own post through that filter. "Everything - most = small" is a mathematically nonsensical statement. Of course, you could also tone the hostility down before reading my post. Maybe that'd have helped you catch the fact that a flaw in systemd does not necessarily equal an argument against systemd, and vice versa. 6 years on Hacker News and this is what you've learned?
      - pessimizer 10y ago
        The first phrase of the first comment you offered on this thread was about how annoying in their ignorance you thought the comments of the people you were replying to were, so you should probably not lecture people on civility at length.
        scrollaway 10y ago
        I was talking about hostility, not civility. Not that it matters, my original comment was neither hostile nor uncivil. Harsh I'll give you, though if you're going to go around a systemd thread spreading thinly-veiled attacks I expect you to have a thick enough skin to be called out on it.
      - rdslw 10y ago

jcadam 10y ago

Ah, but did you force others to use your project? People find that sort of thing annoying at best, infuriating at worst, and they will tend to act out in various ways (to include finding fault with the thing they never asked for that's being shoved down their throat).

scrollaway 10y ago
All my life I've been forced to use things such as Windows, Flash, Skype and Photoshop. Forced because of lock-in strategies in a field with difficult alternatives. "Forced" is not a term that applies to systemd. People say "forced" because their distro adopted it - guess why their distro adopted it? Because they researched it and found it was good. That is the common theme. Nobody forced you. If you're an arch linux user, for example, one of the distros that switched the earliest, you'd have been more than welcome to discuss counter-points to systemd on the mailing list. Of course, most of those that attempted doing so were ridiculed out because in free software, or at least on the Arch ML, there is very little tolerance for bullshit. Most (MOST, not all) of the arguments against systemd are in fact bullshit. Hell, even on HN I've seen people crap on systemd because "it's lennartware". PS: To be clear, there is plenty wrong with systemd. It's far from perfect, it's still very young and I'm not particularly fond of its "all in one" tendencies myself. But most people in this thread have clearly zero ground to comment on its internals, yet many do.
- rdslw 10y ago
  You're plainly wrong. 1) You write "Most (MOST, not all) of the arguments against systemd are in fact bullshit". 2) And yet you (wrongly) write "there is plenty wrong with systemd" To be in line with your 1) statement you should write 'it is only small things with systemd which are wrong. Because everything - MOST = small, and not 'plenty'. Yet you dont do, and you write 'plenty'. Why? Because you know, the moment you write 'there is only a small amount of things wrong with systemd' you will be easily challenged. So, from logic perspective, you're wrong and you contradict yourself.
  - scrollaway 10y ago
    If you're going to try to use "the logic perspective" and be hostile for the sake of being hostile, at least have the decency of running your own post through that filter. "Everything - most = small" is a mathematically nonsensical statement. Of course, you could also tone the hostility down before reading my post. Maybe that'd have helped you catch the fact that a flaw in systemd does not necessarily equal an argument against systemd, and vice versa. 6 years on Hacker News and this is what you've learned?
    - pessimizer 10y ago
      The first phrase of the first comment you offered on this thread was about how annoying in their ignorance you thought the comments of the people you were replying to were, so you should probably not lecture people on civility at length.
      - scrollaway 10y ago
        I was talking about hostility, not civility. Not that it matters, my original comment was neither hostile nor uncivil. Harsh I'll give you, though if you're going to go around a systemd thread spreading thinly-veiled attacks I expect you to have a thick enough skin to be called out on it.
    - rdslw 10y ago