4 ms·

Don't spread FUD. These guys are at least trying to do something in a market where almost everyone else has assumed Facebook has won. And they built and shipped

by n8agrin 16y ago

Don't spread FUD. These guys are at least trying to do something in a market where almost everyone else has assumed Facebook has won. And they built and shipped something. I can't even remember the last time I could claim that 100%. Finalize your opinion when their final release is available.

mayank 16y ago
I'm curious -- what is your faith in them based on? I feel sorry for the amount of expectations they were shouldering, but are you being supportive because you truly believe in their (unproven) technical abilities, because you hate Facebook so much, or are you just being nice because startup criticism can be really soul-killing? If a large corporation had released alpha code like that, would you trust the corporation with your data, even down the line? As much as it may be a nice Don Quixote story, results and credibility are the only things that matter here. The four of them are probably wonderful people, but that means squat when it boils down to code.
- n8agrin 16y ago
  Faith? Support? I certainly don't have faith in them any more than I have faith in you. I know neither you nor them. How could I have "faith" in an unknown? However, I believe that most of the time people attempt to be good. And given that they are willing to let us see their code (unlike many other institutions) I would argue they are living up to my belief at least for now. So they released an alpha that had security issues? The model of open source validated itself; they received critical feedback and will hopefully act on it. If they do not act on it, so be it, I will not trust them with my information. But I don't believe in cynicism especially cynicism aimed at a self-advertised alpha project. Does that mean I support them? Very well then, I support them! Go hunt some giants! Change the world! Go make things better while your critics sit on their hands and tell you can't, too afraid to build things themselves!
  - mkjones 16y ago
    Being good and being able to write secure software are very different, somewhat orthogonal, qualities.
- alextgordon 16y ago
  If a large corporation had released alpha code like that, would you trust the corporation with your data, even down the line? Have no misgivings: Facebook has exactly the same kinds of buggy messes while features are in development. The only difference here is that Facebook's prototypes never see the light of day, whereas Diaspora's did.
  - drivebyacct2 16y ago
    Do you use Facebook on a regular basis? Things are better now but 6 months ago I wouldn't consider that statement to be accurate. I'd consider a Win98 system as reliable as Facebook was then.
jamesteow 16y ago
"These guys are at least trying to do something in a market where almost everyone else has assumed Facebook has won." Considering they were pretty much given $200,000 via a site which NEVER allows startups on their site (what does Diaspora have to do with the creative arts again?), and widely promoted themselves via mainstream media sources without even having written a line of code, I don't think it's unfair to have extremely high expectations from the get go. It's not like it's some random bunch of guys who posted stuff in progress on HN.
elbenshira 16y ago
The truth is, I want them to succeed. They may not defeat FB, but perhaps they'll give us a legit alternative. And yes, I understand that it was a developer release, pre-alpha, or whatever you want to call it, but a release is a release and it people will form opinions of the software because of it. Remember KDE 4.0? It was unusable but it was released, and a lot of controversy and annoyance came out of it. Remember Netscape's brilliant idea of letting real users be its "beta testers"? That was a bad idea. It doesn't matter what you tag a release as; a buggy release is a buggy release. I will look at the next stable release with an open mind, but there is no reason for me to blindly discard their past.

by n8agrin 16y ago

mayank 16y ago

I'm curious -- what is your faith in them based on? I feel sorry for the amount of expectations they were shouldering, but are you being supportive because you truly believe in their (unproven) technical abilities, because you hate Facebook so much, or are you just being nice because startup criticism can be really soul-killing? If a large corporation had released alpha code like that, would you trust the corporation with your data, even down the line? As much as it may be a nice Don Quixote story, results and credibility are the only things that matter here. The four of them are probably wonderful people, but that means squat when it boils down to code.

n8agrin 16y ago
Faith? Support? I certainly don't have faith in them any more than I have faith in you. I know neither you nor them. How could I have "faith" in an unknown? However, I believe that most of the time people attempt to be good. And given that they are willing to let us see their code (unlike many other institutions) I would argue they are living up to my belief at least for now. So they released an alpha that had security issues? The model of open source validated itself; they received critical feedback and will hopefully act on it. If they do not act on it, so be it, I will not trust them with my information. But I don't believe in cynicism especially cynicism aimed at a self-advertised alpha project. Does that mean I support them? Very well then, I support them! Go hunt some giants! Change the world! Go make things better while your critics sit on their hands and tell you can't, too afraid to build things themselves!
- mkjones 16y ago
  Being good and being able to write secure software are very different, somewhat orthogonal, qualities.
alextgordon 16y ago
If a large corporation had released alpha code like that, would you trust the corporation with your data, even down the line? Have no misgivings: Facebook has exactly the same kinds of buggy messes while features are in development. The only difference here is that Facebook's prototypes never see the light of day, whereas Diaspora's did.
- drivebyacct2 16y ago
  Do you use Facebook on a regular basis? Things are better now but 6 months ago I wouldn't consider that statement to be accurate. I'd consider a Win98 system as reliable as Facebook was then.

jamesteow 16y ago

"These guys are at least trying to do something in a market where almost everyone else has assumed Facebook has won." Considering they were pretty much given $200,000 via a site which NEVER allows startups on their site (what does Diaspora have to do with the creative arts again?), and widely promoted themselves via mainstream media sources without even having written a line of code, I don't think it's unfair to have extremely high expectations from the get go. It's not like it's some random bunch of guys who posted stuff in progress on HN.

elbenshira 16y ago

The truth is, I want them to succeed. They may not defeat FB, but perhaps they'll give us a legit alternative. And yes, I understand that it was a developer release, pre-alpha, or whatever you want to call it, but a release is a release and it people will form opinions of the software because of it. Remember KDE 4.0? It was unusable but it was released, and a lot of controversy and annoyance came out of it. Remember Netscape's brilliant idea of letting real users be its "beta testers"? That was a bad idea. It doesn't matter what you tag a release as; a buggy release is a buggy release. I will look at the next stable release with an open mind, but there is no reason for me to blindly discard their past.