7 ms·

> You are responsible for your own needs. If you want things, make them. >I am grateful for the contributions of the community. Every Clojure release incorpora

by Isamu 8y ago

> You are responsible for your own needs. If you want things, make them. >I am grateful for the contributions of the community. Every Clojure release incorporates many contributions. [...] Open source is a no-strings-attached gift, and all participants should recognize it as such. >The time to re-examine preconceptions about open source is right now. Morale erosion amongst creators is a real thing. Sad that it has to be said. I think as a creator you need to brace yourself for the reality of what it means to offer something to the world. There is a sort of normal distribution of consumers and some can be surprisingly toxic.

madrox 8y ago
Interestingly, this isn't just isolated to open source. I've heard similar sentiments expressed by artists of popular works, including but not limited to: - Game developers - Authors of popular novels that have yet to finish ("GRRM is not your bitch") - Star Wars
- mattnewton 8y ago
  With open source you have an easy recourse: the fork. With a game, movie or another peice of culture, the law can hinder your fork. If you want to make the Star Wars episode you wish had existed, you have to navigate the tretcherous waters of fair use and copyright. There are also plenty of tales of indie game developers attempting to remix a game from their childhood on a new platform only to get a cease and desist as soon as the rights holders get wind of it.
  - madrox 8y ago
    You are perfectly entitled to write that Star Wars fanfic. Here's a whole directory of it: https://www.fanfiction.net/movie/Star-Wars/ https://www.fanfiction.net/movie/Star-Wars/ You are not entitled to make money off it, just like you aren't entitled to make money off that open source project you forked.
    - ghaff 8y ago
      There's a huge difference. The copyright and trademark owners may choose to ignore your little fanfic hobby. (Or they may not.) In the case of open source software, you can fork it (or not) and--assuming you abide by the license terms--you can do anything you want including making money of it.
    - alexeldeib 8y ago
      Isn't your second point precisely part of the difference? With an open source project and an appropriate license, you may very well be able to make money of a forked version of the project.
      - ghaff 8y ago
        No OSI-approved open source license prohibits you from making money off an open source project (forked or otherwise). Though some licenses make it easier to take certain monetization paths than others.
    - dec0dedab0de 8y ago
      You are not entitled to make money off it, just like you aren't entitled to make money off that open source project you forked. You are absolutely entitled to make money off of an open source project you fork. As long as your fork provides value you that someone is willing to pay for.
      - spiralganglion 8y ago
        That depends on the license of the open source project, and the way in which you choose to make money with it.
        btilly 8y ago
        Any license that says you can't try to make money off of it isn't open source. Literally by definition. If you don't understand this, then you don't understand the open source movement. See https://opensource.org/osd-annotated https://opensource.org/osd-annotated for a basic primer.
- sparkie 8y ago
  If you are productive you will have enemies. Perhaps even, the more productive you are, the more enemies you will make. People who are particularly unproductive tend to think that the world owes them something.
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    As Carnegie used to write, "no one ever kicks a dead dog". Also, the more important the 'dog', the more satisfaction some people derive from kicking it. So unfounded and nasty criticism is probably best seen as validating that your work is making some impact.
    - yesenadam 8y ago
      Must remember that next time I get downvoted or roundly abused on here, thanks. Well, you know, when it's not deserved. p.s. Was gonna ask "Which Carnegie?" but Google says Dale. edit: Nice to see my work is making some impact. :-)
- georgeecollins 8y ago
  As a game developer: Amen! I had been doing that a long time when one of my producers (on his first game) wanted to be on the forums to interact with "fans". I think he was excited and thought it would be satisfying to interact with people who were playing the game we developed. I remember thinking it would be like that when I started. Don't get me wrong, most gamers, like most people, are terrific. But they get drowned out by the disgruntled.
  - Faark 8y ago
    Then you better stick to that classical sales model that seems to be on the way out. The minute you sell the full package of an unfinished products, people will feel entitled to what they expect it to be (rightfully, imo). So you'd should avoid Pre-Purchase, Season Pass and some degree Early Access. I'm torn about the latter, since it is supposed to be sold "as is" with no expectations, but don't think this is was most actually do. Also how do you think about post launch updates to fix bugs? Those seem to be generally expected as well, now.
    - btschaegg 8y ago
      > Also how do you think about post launch updates to fix bugs? Those seem to be generally expected as well, now. Personally, I'd say the consumers are entitled to those, too. Your comment made me think of various games where I think that wasn't the case -- and that's mainly because those games were finished (and polished) before release. I never expected any bugfixes for Games such as Starfox 64, Zeldas, Super Marios, and various others out of my old SNES and N64 cartriges. Because they worked. They were finished. Funny enough: Super Mario Odyssey had some a-ha moment for me because it also worked just fine literally out of the box, which is something I'm not seeing often enough anymore. But honestly, launches nowadays are usually far more on the side of Games like Elder Scrolls: Oblivion than those examples. Imagine a regular software engineer in $MARKET going "ugh, all these people we've sold buggy software to at full price now think they're entitled to bugfixes." OTOH, there are of course some games where the effort put in by the developers far exceeds what any customer could reasonably expect. Terraria would be a great example for this.
    - 8y ago
- Isamu 8y ago
  Thank you for pointing this out, there are so many niches where fans/consumers are taking the creators to task for some grievance or other. One positive way to interpret this is to recognize that fans are passionate and want the project to succeed and fulfill all their dreams. But reality is a harsh mistress and not all dreams will be realized.
- tareqak 8y ago
  Continuing your list: - Twitch streamers - songwriters - composers - screenwriters I think it might be a part of any artistic endeavour: you'd probably have to have a list of creative efforts that don't have this problem to try to get a smaller list.
  - Buttons840 8y ago
    As Steven Pressfield tells us in The War of Art: "The artist committing himself to his calling has volunteered for hell, whether he knows it or not. He will be dining for the duration on a diet of isolation, rejection, self-doubt, despair, ridicule, contempt, and humiliation."
- jakebasile 8y ago
  To be fair, there is a difference between someone who gives away something, be it software or otherwise, and someone who sells something.
- im3w1l 8y ago
  This is the rational approach, but it is not in accordance with human nature. Human nature is fanboys. Picture sports supporters. They will perceive a relationship that you may have never intended. They will wave your flag and they will sing your praise and they will cheer you on. And they will expect you to live up to the grandiose image they have of you, and will punish you when you "betray" them. I think people are certainly taking note of these "entitled" comments when they decide what to get emotionally invested in. If I know ahead of time you "wont be my bitch" maybe I'll save myself some grief and not get started with your series. Bitcoin is an interesting case. It has very deliberately rewarded it's early adopters and fanboys, and that strategy paid of very well.
- gaius 8y ago
  Not the same thing at all - those are commercial products. If someone has paid for a product and feels it was missold then yes, they are entitled to leave a review. Especially since cinemas don’t offer refunds to dissatisfied customers.
matz1 8y ago
Yes , it's the reality, i think it's better for the creator to learn and act to be the actual dictator. This might mean ignoring those community suggestion/request that they don't like. kinda like linus which I admire.
Derbasti 8y ago
You know, I wrote a number of successful open source packages. By and large, feedback is positive, or at least utilitarian: bug reports, feature requests, questions. But there is also the occasional angry user, or, rarely, a simple thank you. Recently, I published my first-ever commercial video game plugin. And was dumbfounded by the sheer positivity of the response. People thanked me! I got dozens of purely positive emails. I had never experienced such a thing in my Open Source work. If we had more of that in Open Source, maybe maintainership wouldn't be such a burden.
- oelmekki 8y ago
  I wouldn't dare writing just to say "thank you", it would feel like a no-op wasting people time. Instead, I would rather star the project on github. Did you consider those as thanks?
  - titanix2 8y ago
    Having published some apps a few years ago, the occasional thank you mail can be a real moral boost. Dehumanized interaction such as staring a project is not of the same category.
    - oelmekki 8y ago
      I totally get it, it's all a question of balance, I guess. An _occasional_ thanks you mail is great. On the other hand, getting pass the 100 stars on a project on github is a big moral boost too, and probably wouldn't feel so great if each one was a mail :) But actually, I realize both can easily be reconciled : we could send a "thank you" message to projects with low amount of github stars, and just star those which have a high amount. This would both cheer solo dev starting their project and avoid annoying bigger teams on well established projects.
      - kingosticks 8y ago
        Has anyone ever been annoyed with a thank you email? Compared to the crap/spam/adverts that turns up in our inboxes every single day, a genuine thank you from an actual human being should be fine. And if not, just stick it in the spam folder with everything else. Github stars are utterly meaningless to many.
arkh 8y ago
Here is a trick: don't engage with those people. Someone said bad words to you on the internet? Close your browser tab: you're done. Learn that you can't please everyone and you're better alone than with bad company. I don't know if it's because a lot of drama queens and marketing people populate social media but it feels like most people can't fucking live without the approval of everyone when reading some websites. If you want to bring conference in (it's IRL, can't close a tab) here is how to react: when someone start telling you shit, stop speaking, turn 180°, go join another group of people. It's rude? So what? Some person is now fuming while you're stress-free and engaging with better people. Learn to ignore people. Learn to say no. You don't have to please anyone.
- grenoire 8y ago
  Words of wisdom that truly matches yours from Tyler, The Creator: https://twitter.com/tylerthecreator/status/285670822264307712 https://twitter.com/tylerthecreator/status/28567082226430771...
- night815 8y ago
  How do you know when you are interacting with one of "those people"? Even better, how can I join a conversation without being written off as one of them?
  - arkh 8y ago
    > how can I join a conversation without being written off as one of them Usually "treat others like you'd like to be treated" is a good heuristic. If not I'd encourage you to seek a therapist and start working on yourself.
ragall 8y ago
The attitude of many is strangely feudal: "I (potential contributor) offer my fealty (using your code) to you (author), and in exchange you owe me protection (features)." These people are under the impression that authors ought to be impressed that somebody uses their code, which is not the case. Lots of users are nothing but a weight that drags you down: if you want to swim, you must cut them loose ASAP.

by Isamu 8y ago

madrox 8y ago

Interestingly, this isn't just isolated to open source. I've heard similar sentiments expressed by artists of popular works, including but not limited to: - Game developers - Authors of popular novels that have yet to finish ("GRRM is not your bitch") - Star Wars

mattnewton 8y ago
With open source you have an easy recourse: the fork. With a game, movie or another peice of culture, the law can hinder your fork. If you want to make the Star Wars episode you wish had existed, you have to navigate the tretcherous waters of fair use and copyright. There are also plenty of tales of indie game developers attempting to remix a game from their childhood on a new platform only to get a cease and desist as soon as the rights holders get wind of it.
- madrox 8y ago
  You are perfectly entitled to write that Star Wars fanfic. Here's a whole directory of it: https://www.fanfiction.net/movie/Star-Wars/ https://www.fanfiction.net/movie/Star-Wars/ You are not entitled to make money off it, just like you aren't entitled to make money off that open source project you forked.
  - ghaff 8y ago
    There's a huge difference. The copyright and trademark owners may choose to ignore your little fanfic hobby. (Or they may not.) In the case of open source software, you can fork it (or not) and--assuming you abide by the license terms--you can do anything you want including making money of it.
  - alexeldeib 8y ago
    Isn't your second point precisely part of the difference? With an open source project and an appropriate license, you may very well be able to make money of a forked version of the project.
    - ghaff 8y ago
      No OSI-approved open source license prohibits you from making money off an open source project (forked or otherwise). Though some licenses make it easier to take certain monetization paths than others.
  - dec0dedab0de 8y ago
    You are not entitled to make money off it, just like you aren't entitled to make money off that open source project you forked. You are absolutely entitled to make money off of an open source project you fork. As long as your fork provides value you that someone is willing to pay for.
    - spiralganglion 8y ago
      That depends on the license of the open source project, and the way in which you choose to make money with it.
      - btilly 8y ago
        Any license that says you can't try to make money off of it isn't open source. Literally by definition. If you don't understand this, then you don't understand the open source movement. See https://opensource.org/osd-annotated https://opensource.org/osd-annotated for a basic primer.
sparkie 8y ago
If you are productive you will have enemies. Perhaps even, the more productive you are, the more enemies you will make. People who are particularly unproductive tend to think that the world owes them something.
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  As Carnegie used to write, "no one ever kicks a dead dog". Also, the more important the 'dog', the more satisfaction some people derive from kicking it. So unfounded and nasty criticism is probably best seen as validating that your work is making some impact.
  - yesenadam 8y ago
    Must remember that next time I get downvoted or roundly abused on here, thanks. Well, you know, when it's not deserved. p.s. Was gonna ask "Which Carnegie?" but Google says Dale. edit: Nice to see my work is making some impact. :-)
georgeecollins 8y ago
As a game developer: Amen! I had been doing that a long time when one of my producers (on his first game) wanted to be on the forums to interact with "fans". I think he was excited and thought it would be satisfying to interact with people who were playing the game we developed. I remember thinking it would be like that when I started. Don't get me wrong, most gamers, like most people, are terrific. But they get drowned out by the disgruntled.
- Faark 8y ago
  Then you better stick to that classical sales model that seems to be on the way out. The minute you sell the full package of an unfinished products, people will feel entitled to what they expect it to be (rightfully, imo). So you'd should avoid Pre-Purchase, Season Pass and some degree Early Access. I'm torn about the latter, since it is supposed to be sold "as is" with no expectations, but don't think this is was most actually do. Also how do you think about post launch updates to fix bugs? Those seem to be generally expected as well, now.
  - btschaegg 8y ago
    > Also how do you think about post launch updates to fix bugs? Those seem to be generally expected as well, now. Personally, I'd say the consumers are entitled to those, too. Your comment made me think of various games where I think that wasn't the case -- and that's mainly because those games were finished (and polished) before release. I never expected any bugfixes for Games such as Starfox 64, Zeldas, Super Marios, and various others out of my old SNES and N64 cartriges. Because they worked. They were finished. Funny enough: Super Mario Odyssey had some a-ha moment for me because it also worked just fine literally out of the box, which is something I'm not seeing often enough anymore. But honestly, launches nowadays are usually far more on the side of Games like Elder Scrolls: Oblivion than those examples. Imagine a regular software engineer in $MARKET going "ugh, all these people we've sold buggy software to at full price now think they're entitled to bugfixes." OTOH, there are of course some games where the effort put in by the developers far exceeds what any customer could reasonably expect. Terraria would be a great example for this.
  - 8y ago
Isamu 8y ago
Thank you for pointing this out, there are so many niches where fans/consumers are taking the creators to task for some grievance or other. One positive way to interpret this is to recognize that fans are passionate and want the project to succeed and fulfill all their dreams. But reality is a harsh mistress and not all dreams will be realized.
tareqak 8y ago
Continuing your list: - Twitch streamers - songwriters - composers - screenwriters I think it might be a part of any artistic endeavour: you'd probably have to have a list of creative efforts that don't have this problem to try to get a smaller list.
- Buttons840 8y ago
  As Steven Pressfield tells us in The War of Art: "The artist committing himself to his calling has volunteered for hell, whether he knows it or not. He will be dining for the duration on a diet of isolation, rejection, self-doubt, despair, ridicule, contempt, and humiliation."
jakebasile 8y ago
To be fair, there is a difference between someone who gives away something, be it software or otherwise, and someone who sells something.
im3w1l 8y ago
This is the rational approach, but it is not in accordance with human nature. Human nature is fanboys. Picture sports supporters. They will perceive a relationship that you may have never intended. They will wave your flag and they will sing your praise and they will cheer you on. And they will expect you to live up to the grandiose image they have of you, and will punish you when you "betray" them. I think people are certainly taking note of these "entitled" comments when they decide what to get emotionally invested in. If I know ahead of time you "wont be my bitch" maybe I'll save myself some grief and not get started with your series. Bitcoin is an interesting case. It has very deliberately rewarded it's early adopters and fanboys, and that strategy paid of very well.
gaius 8y ago
Not the same thing at all - those are commercial products. If someone has paid for a product and feels it was missold then yes, they are entitled to leave a review. Especially since cinemas don’t offer refunds to dissatisfied customers.

matz1 8y ago

Yes , it's the reality, i think it's better for the creator to learn and act to be the actual dictator. This might mean ignoring those community suggestion/request that they don't like. kinda like linus which I admire.

Derbasti 8y ago

You know, I wrote a number of successful open source packages. By and large, feedback is positive, or at least utilitarian: bug reports, feature requests, questions. But there is also the occasional angry user, or, rarely, a simple thank you. Recently, I published my first-ever commercial video game plugin. And was dumbfounded by the sheer positivity of the response. People thanked me! I got dozens of purely positive emails. I had never experienced such a thing in my Open Source work. If we had more of that in Open Source, maybe maintainership wouldn't be such a burden.

oelmekki 8y ago
I wouldn't dare writing just to say "thank you", it would feel like a no-op wasting people time. Instead, I would rather star the project on github. Did you consider those as thanks?
- titanix2 8y ago
  Having published some apps a few years ago, the occasional thank you mail can be a real moral boost. Dehumanized interaction such as staring a project is not of the same category.
  - oelmekki 8y ago
    I totally get it, it's all a question of balance, I guess. An _occasional_ thanks you mail is great. On the other hand, getting pass the 100 stars on a project on github is a big moral boost too, and probably wouldn't feel so great if each one was a mail :) But actually, I realize both can easily be reconciled : we could send a "thank you" message to projects with low amount of github stars, and just star those which have a high amount. This would both cheer solo dev starting their project and avoid annoying bigger teams on well established projects.
    - kingosticks 8y ago
      Has anyone ever been annoyed with a thank you email? Compared to the crap/spam/adverts that turns up in our inboxes every single day, a genuine thank you from an actual human being should be fine. And if not, just stick it in the spam folder with everything else. Github stars are utterly meaningless to many.

arkh 8y ago

Here is a trick: don't engage with those people. Someone said bad words to you on the internet? Close your browser tab: you're done. Learn that you can't please everyone and you're better alone than with bad company. I don't know if it's because a lot of drama queens and marketing people populate social media but it feels like most people can't fucking live without the approval of everyone when reading some websites. If you want to bring conference in (it's IRL, can't close a tab) here is how to react: when someone start telling you shit, stop speaking, turn 180°, go join another group of people. It's rude? So what? Some person is now fuming while you're stress-free and engaging with better people. Learn to ignore people. Learn to say no. You don't have to please anyone.

grenoire 8y ago
Words of wisdom that truly matches yours from Tyler, The Creator: https://twitter.com/tylerthecreator/status/285670822264307712 https://twitter.com/tylerthecreator/status/28567082226430771...
night815 8y ago
How do you know when you are interacting with one of "those people"? Even better, how can I join a conversation without being written off as one of them?
- arkh 8y ago
  > how can I join a conversation without being written off as one of them Usually "treat others like you'd like to be treated" is a good heuristic. If not I'd encourage you to seek a therapist and start working on yourself.

ragall 8y ago

The attitude of many is strangely feudal: "I (potential contributor) offer my fealty (using your code) to you (author), and in exchange you owe me protection (features)." These people are under the impression that authors ought to be impressed that somebody uses their code, which is not the case. Lots of users are nothing but a weight that drags you down: if you want to swim, you must cut them loose ASAP.