3 ms·

>Normally I'd call it "Open Source Dev" mentality, Look, I get that there are some jackasses out there, but I think it's really wrong to use the words "open so

>Normally I'd call it "Open Source Dev" mentality, Look, I get that there are some jackasses out there, but I think it's really wrong to use the words "open source dev" as an insult. People are out there giving their time and talents to the world for free, and we're all better off for it. An imperfect volunteer still deserves a thank you, not public ridicule.

ensiferum 8y ago
I'm guessing the GP was referring to the sheer arrogance of many open source devs/projects where comments/requests/bug reports are often met with "works for me" or "if you don't like it don't use it" kind of responses.
AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
The thing is, the encounters with Open Source people you remember and that color your conception of the community are the ones where the dev ignores issues for years, blames the user, and WONTFIXes legitimate problems. It's made all the worse by evangelists who try to tell everyone how great open source is and how everyone should only use open source software, only to turn around and tell people to fix or implement something themselves when legitimate issues are raised. The community has an image problem and that is definitely a problem for the entire community. You can try and say "well, most of them aren't like that", but it just doesn't matter because enough of them are and it is an accepted part of the culture. Frankly, I don't care if you worked for free. That's a fair reason for not giving enough of a crap to fix something, but at the same time you'd better not be holding that mentality while trying to recruit me as a user. If I can't use your software then I don't see a reason to thank you for making it.
- zeroname 8y ago
  Obviously, no FOSS developer can deal with all user's issues, especially when they don't pay. They have to drastically limit scope. That means saying "no" to some users and their issues. FOSS developers nevertheless should be able to evangelize their software to users in general. Nobody expects a "thank you" when you don't actually use the software.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
    In a reasonable world what would happen is the developer would say "hey, try my software", and the user would say "sorry, I don't like it/can't use it because of X", and the developer would either say "you're right, I should fix that" or "ok, fair enough". In my experience, this is not what happens. What happens is they tell you that your use case is invalid, your workflow is wrong, you're too stupid to get it, or a bunch of other lame excuses and then still think you should use their software or even fix it for them.
    - zeroname 8y ago
      If you criticize somebody's work, they'll get defensive. That's a totally normal human reaction. Users rarely say things like "sorry I don't like it", it's more likely they file their pet peeve as a major grievance that supposedly affects untold numbers of other users, like the guy who wrote this blog post. Frankly, a lot of users really do have bad workflows, questionable use-cases and they are relatively uninformed and often unwilling to learn why things work the way they do. If they don't pay, what else should they do besides fixing it themselves? Generally though, "patches welcome" or "fix it yourself" is just a more polite way of saying "this is getting annoying, please leave now". I don't think those developers actually care that you (don't) use their software. You can tell when somebody actively wants to keep you as a user by them not acting in that way. Like saying "we'll consider it" and then proceeding to do nothing, for example.
      - AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
        Likely any grievance one user has is shared by many other users who are silent about it, because those others didn't even care enough about your software to bother posting an issue. Worse, you often see this same grievance aired time and time again over years and it is still dismissed out of hand. >Frankly, a lot of users really do have bad workflows, questionable use-cases and they are relatively uninformed and often unwilling to learn why things work the way they do. Yes, everyone thinks this about everyone else's workflow. Part of being a good developer, I think, is that just because you can't understand why someone wants to do a certain thing doesn't mean that their use case is invalid. That's childish and, frankly, entirely expected of Open Source Dev culture, which has a nasty habit of being condescending to users.
username223 8y ago
The majority of OSS devs, like the majority of human beings, are basically decent and just trying to get through the day. However, some of the most prominent ones are famous for being a-holes (e.g. Linux Torvalds, Theo de Raadt, and especially Ulrich Drepper[1]). They aren't "giving their time and talents to the world for free." They're trading their code for the opportunity to verbally abuse people, and we should not ignore that. [1] https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4980 https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4980
- zeroname 8y ago
  I don't see an issue with Ulrich's behavior here. Calling somebody an idiot after being called "a terrorist" seems rather fair. Being a somebody, of course he is going to be the center of attention, not the dozens of nobodies annoying him into reacting like that. Nobodies like you, who have no name, who have a disposable identity, who get to accuse people of misdemeanor online. You are not a decent person, that's for sure.

ensiferum 8y ago

I'm guessing the GP was referring to the sheer arrogance of many open source devs/projects where comments/requests/bug reports are often met with "works for me" or "if you don't like it don't use it" kind of responses.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago

The thing is, the encounters with Open Source people you remember and that color your conception of the community are the ones where the dev ignores issues for years, blames the user, and WONTFIXes legitimate problems. It's made all the worse by evangelists who try to tell everyone how great open source is and how everyone should only use open source software, only to turn around and tell people to fix or implement something themselves when legitimate issues are raised. The community has an image problem and that is definitely a problem for the entire community. You can try and say "well, most of them aren't like that", but it just doesn't matter because enough of them are and it is an accepted part of the culture. Frankly, I don't care if you worked for free. That's a fair reason for not giving enough of a crap to fix something, but at the same time you'd better not be holding that mentality while trying to recruit me as a user. If I can't use your software then I don't see a reason to thank you for making it.

zeroname 8y ago
Obviously, no FOSS developer can deal with all user's issues, especially when they don't pay. They have to drastically limit scope. That means saying "no" to some users and their issues. FOSS developers nevertheless should be able to evangelize their software to users in general. Nobody expects a "thank you" when you don't actually use the software.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
  In a reasonable world what would happen is the developer would say "hey, try my software", and the user would say "sorry, I don't like it/can't use it because of X", and the developer would either say "you're right, I should fix that" or "ok, fair enough". In my experience, this is not what happens. What happens is they tell you that your use case is invalid, your workflow is wrong, you're too stupid to get it, or a bunch of other lame excuses and then still think you should use their software or even fix it for them.
  - zeroname 8y ago
    If you criticize somebody's work, they'll get defensive. That's a totally normal human reaction. Users rarely say things like "sorry I don't like it", it's more likely they file their pet peeve as a major grievance that supposedly affects untold numbers of other users, like the guy who wrote this blog post. Frankly, a lot of users really do have bad workflows, questionable use-cases and they are relatively uninformed and often unwilling to learn why things work the way they do. If they don't pay, what else should they do besides fixing it themselves? Generally though, "patches welcome" or "fix it yourself" is just a more polite way of saying "this is getting annoying, please leave now". I don't think those developers actually care that you (don't) use their software. You can tell when somebody actively wants to keep you as a user by them not acting in that way. Like saying "we'll consider it" and then proceeding to do nothing, for example.
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
      Likely any grievance one user has is shared by many other users who are silent about it, because those others didn't even care enough about your software to bother posting an issue. Worse, you often see this same grievance aired time and time again over years and it is still dismissed out of hand. >Frankly, a lot of users really do have bad workflows, questionable use-cases and they are relatively uninformed and often unwilling to learn why things work the way they do. Yes, everyone thinks this about everyone else's workflow. Part of being a good developer, I think, is that just because you can't understand why someone wants to do a certain thing doesn't mean that their use case is invalid. That's childish and, frankly, entirely expected of Open Source Dev culture, which has a nasty habit of being condescending to users.

username223 8y ago

The majority of OSS devs, like the majority of human beings, are basically decent and just trying to get through the day. However, some of the most prominent ones are famous for being a-holes (e.g. Linux Torvalds, Theo de Raadt, and especially Ulrich Drepper[1]). They aren't "giving their time and talents to the world for free." They're trading their code for the opportunity to verbally abuse people, and we should not ignore that. [1] https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4980 https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4980

zeroname 8y ago
I don't see an issue with Ulrich's behavior here. Calling somebody an idiot after being called "a terrorist" seems rather fair. Being a somebody, of course he is going to be the center of attention, not the dozens of nobodies annoying him into reacting like that. Nobodies like you, who have no name, who have a disposable identity, who get to accuse people of misdemeanor online. You are not a decent person, that's for sure.