3 ms·
Felker's comment was that a big corporation might release botched code that contained hacks, but their influence would mean developers would be stuck coding aga
by hyperpape 7y ago
Felker's comment was that a big corporation might release botched code that contained hacks, but their influence would mean developers would be stuck coding against it.
If that's insulting at all, it's several levels less insulting than the sort of thing I see dang moderating.
- scarface74 7y agoThen fork it - isn’t that the whole idea behind open source?
- je42 7y agothe whole point is "you cannot fork a fixed dependency". if they put this libc into an environment where other applications need to work, then application developers will need to deal with the fact that there a multiple libc around and need to take their behaviour into consideration.
- hyperpape 7y agoIrrelevant, whether or not it's a good response. A comment being wrong is not a reason to moderate it for it being insulting.
- tinus_hn 7y agoThe argument would be that he is dragging in incidents and companies, which could derail the discussion unnecessary. That’s reasonable but this is not: > I don't think this project poses any risk there, much like Zach points out in his reply. Google is specifically discussing [...] Now he’s using his moderator rights to push his opinion which unsurprisingly defends his employer. He should have sent two mails, one moderating and one participating in the discussion.