6 ms·

I am increasingly of the opinion that free open source software should include fun things like this. It is an easy way to remind people just what "free, but wit

I am increasingly of the opinion that free open source software should include fun things like this. It is an easy way to remind people just what "free, but with no warranty" means.

crooked-v 8y ago
That sounds like an excellent way to get people to stop using any new open source software.
- CJefferson 8y ago
  Well, if they don't want me to have any fun, they can pay me.
  - crooked-v 8y ago
    If you want to make proprietary software, make proprietary software. Don't make open source software and intentionally put traps in it.
    - CJefferson 8y ago
      Your message has really annoyed me, I just wanted to say that. I found the tone quite upsetting, although I hope it's just because our only communication is through this brief chat, and we don't really know each other. I've never made proprietary software. I've written hundreds of thousands of lines of open source code in dozens of projects. I make releases of those projects, answer bug reports and issues, review PRs, all for free. Often I get annoying demanding emails for support for something I give away for free, which is quite annoying, but I usually answer anyway unless the sender is really annoying. In a couple of them, there are features which are the because they amused me when I wrote them. Nothing that would lead to a wrong answer. Maybe if someone wants to base their business on my free labor, they have to put up with that.
      - lox 8y ago
        I’m an open-source author too, and I experience the same frustrations with demands for support and features, so I deeply hear you. That said, your initial comment did come across as pretty flippant without the context in your reply. I think it was the “should” bit. Just as nobody should be able to tell you whether you can add light hearted features to your software that make you happy, you shouldn’t be telling others authors that it’s not ok for us to write open-source software that aims to be professional, transparent and trustworthy. I’m sure the things you write are these things too, and I agree sometimes it’s good to be light hearted and have fun, but I reject that we “should” inject reminders like this in our open source with the intention of reminding others it’s free. That would take us back to the days of nagware, IMO. At any rate, if you were just venting, I hear you. Thank you for your contributions to open-source!
        em-bee 8y ago
        you shouldn’t be telling others authors that it’s not ok for us to write open-source software that aims to be professional, transparent and trustworthy the poster didn't say that. i think you are reading a bit to much into those words. there is no mention of what other authors should do. poster is talking about their own motivations for adding features like that, but in no way suggesting that everyone should do that. your response suggests that you can't have fun with software that aims to be professional, transparent and trustworthy. i'd disagree with that. pranking others is not the only way to have fun. but if that is what you believe, maybe you shouldn't be telling others that they can't have fun with their software. a more measured response might be to point out that having fun is ok, but doing so at the expense of others comes across as unprofessional, intransparent and untrustworthy. but if an author doesn't mind coming across like that, it's still their choice. but then, that's my opinion. yours might be different.
        CJefferson 8y ago
        Firstly, I'm of course happy for anyone to write their software how they like -- I should say if you want to write "business ready" software, then that's great. Often such things are backed partly by company. A better phrasing might be, fun Easter eggs, like wishing users Merry Christmas, might be a good way to denote software which is free, but is not designed to be slotted straight into a for-profit business critical situation -- certainly don't come crying if something breaks on IE 11 or whatever.
  - matte_black 8y ago
    You can use my software for free if you let me have some fun trashing your database and spreading malware to your users.
    - EvilTerran 8y ago
      https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Don't be snarky. Comments should get more civil and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
PhasmaFelis 8y ago
> It is an easy way to remind people just what "free, but with no warranty" means. Which is what? "Untrustworthy, avoid"?
- steventhedev 8y ago
  Read the EULA for Windows; or Chrome; or Firefox; or Word; or ... The no warranty clause is included in the BSD, MIT, GPL, MPL, and Apache licenses (and many others...) Sometimes things will work out for you, sometimes it means exactly what it says on the tin: "I don't promise this works"
  - PhasmaFelis 8y ago
    There's a clear difference between "I don't promise this works" and "I've broken this on purpose and knowingly hidden it from you."
tokyodude 8y ago
App yes, Library no? IIRC VLC's icon has a Christmas tree on Christmas. That's cool. Some library having a Christmas day Easter egg, not so cool. That said the lesson here is probably that if you're doing any serious dev you really should be reading the source before putting the library in your app and, you should be forking the library into your repo or into your own package manager server and only taking updates you've reviewed.
- killaken2000 8y ago
  I'm not a fan of the VLC icon change but I use something else because of it. It's their choice to include it an my choice not to use it. Disabling it is easy enough but I have other things to do.
  - bayindirh 8y ago
    I wonder why a small icon change is so bothering. Care to elaborate?
    - zimpenfish 8y ago
      "What other hidden surprises are in the code?" would be one thought. If you can't trust them to leave the icon alone, what else can't you trust them with? (Note that I don't necessarily agree with this but it's an obvious path.)
      - bayindirh 8y ago
        From my perspective, it's the opposite. I think that "If they're smart and fun to implement a Christmas hat on the icon, they're possibly nice guys, and won't do something sinister". This is coming from my 20+ years of experience with computers and applications. I've seen that programs with easter eggs may have some stupid bugs, but won't have something sinister inside them. OTOH, applications with some very serious and no-nonsense attitude has the most advanced "phone home" mechanisms. This is my experience though. I'd happily stand corrected if I'm wrong.

I am increasingly of the opinion that free open source software should include fun things like this. It is an easy way to remind people just what "free, but with no warranty" means.

crooked-v 8y ago

That sounds like an excellent way to get people to stop using any new open source software.

CJefferson 8y ago
Well, if they don't want me to have any fun, they can pay me.
- crooked-v 8y ago
  If you want to make proprietary software, make proprietary software. Don't make open source software and intentionally put traps in it.
  - CJefferson 8y ago
    Your message has really annoyed me, I just wanted to say that. I found the tone quite upsetting, although I hope it's just because our only communication is through this brief chat, and we don't really know each other. I've never made proprietary software. I've written hundreds of thousands of lines of open source code in dozens of projects. I make releases of those projects, answer bug reports and issues, review PRs, all for free. Often I get annoying demanding emails for support for something I give away for free, which is quite annoying, but I usually answer anyway unless the sender is really annoying. In a couple of them, there are features which are the because they amused me when I wrote them. Nothing that would lead to a wrong answer. Maybe if someone wants to base their business on my free labor, they have to put up with that.
    - lox 8y ago
      I’m an open-source author too, and I experience the same frustrations with demands for support and features, so I deeply hear you. That said, your initial comment did come across as pretty flippant without the context in your reply. I think it was the “should” bit. Just as nobody should be able to tell you whether you can add light hearted features to your software that make you happy, you shouldn’t be telling others authors that it’s not ok for us to write open-source software that aims to be professional, transparent and trustworthy. I’m sure the things you write are these things too, and I agree sometimes it’s good to be light hearted and have fun, but I reject that we “should” inject reminders like this in our open source with the intention of reminding others it’s free. That would take us back to the days of nagware, IMO. At any rate, if you were just venting, I hear you. Thank you for your contributions to open-source!
      - em-bee 8y ago
        you shouldn’t be telling others authors that it’s not ok for us to write open-source software that aims to be professional, transparent and trustworthy the poster didn't say that. i think you are reading a bit to much into those words. there is no mention of what other authors should do. poster is talking about their own motivations for adding features like that, but in no way suggesting that everyone should do that. your response suggests that you can't have fun with software that aims to be professional, transparent and trustworthy. i'd disagree with that. pranking others is not the only way to have fun. but if that is what you believe, maybe you shouldn't be telling others that they can't have fun with their software. a more measured response might be to point out that having fun is ok, but doing so at the expense of others comes across as unprofessional, intransparent and untrustworthy. but if an author doesn't mind coming across like that, it's still their choice. but then, that's my opinion. yours might be different.
      - CJefferson 8y ago
        Firstly, I'm of course happy for anyone to write their software how they like -- I should say if you want to write "business ready" software, then that's great. Often such things are backed partly by company. A better phrasing might be, fun Easter eggs, like wishing users Merry Christmas, might be a good way to denote software which is free, but is not designed to be slotted straight into a for-profit business critical situation -- certainly don't come crying if something breaks on IE 11 or whatever.
- matte_black 8y ago
  You can use my software for free if you let me have some fun trashing your database and spreading malware to your users.
  - EvilTerran 8y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Don't be snarky. Comments should get more civil and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

PhasmaFelis 8y ago

> It is an easy way to remind people just what "free, but with no warranty" means. Which is what? "Untrustworthy, avoid"?

steventhedev 8y ago
Read the EULA for Windows; or Chrome; or Firefox; or Word; or ... The no warranty clause is included in the BSD, MIT, GPL, MPL, and Apache licenses (and many others...) Sometimes things will work out for you, sometimes it means exactly what it says on the tin: "I don't promise this works"
- PhasmaFelis 8y ago
  There's a clear difference between "I don't promise this works" and "I've broken this on purpose and knowingly hidden it from you."

tokyodude 8y ago

App yes, Library no? IIRC VLC's icon has a Christmas tree on Christmas. That's cool. Some library having a Christmas day Easter egg, not so cool. That said the lesson here is probably that if you're doing any serious dev you really should be reading the source before putting the library in your app and, you should be forking the library into your repo or into your own package manager server and only taking updates you've reviewed.

killaken2000 8y ago
I'm not a fan of the VLC icon change but I use something else because of it. It's their choice to include it an my choice not to use it. Disabling it is easy enough but I have other things to do.
- bayindirh 8y ago
  I wonder why a small icon change is so bothering. Care to elaborate?
  - zimpenfish 8y ago
    "What other hidden surprises are in the code?" would be one thought. If you can't trust them to leave the icon alone, what else can't you trust them with? (Note that I don't necessarily agree with this but it's an obvious path.)
    - bayindirh 8y ago
      From my perspective, it's the opposite. I think that "If they're smart and fun to implement a Christmas hat on the icon, they're possibly nice guys, and won't do something sinister". This is coming from my 20+ years of experience with computers and applications. I've seen that programs with easter eggs may have some stupid bugs, but won't have something sinister inside them. OTOH, applications with some very serious and no-nonsense attitude has the most advanced "phone home" mechanisms. This is my experience though. I'd happily stand corrected if I'm wrong.