4 ms·

> There's no need to flame people for running their open-source project the way they want to run it. You can just not use the code. It works both ways. You put

> There's no need to flame people for running their open-source project the way they want to run it. You can just not use the code. It works both ways. You put something out there, you need to be ready for the response. I'm not a Rust user, but presumably there was a reason other than charity that he put it out there (show off his brilliance, use it to get jobs, I don't know - but it was something he did for his own benefit). If you don't like that, don't make your code available to others, and don't complain if others act in a way you don't like. There's so much posted on HN about "open source entitlement". Well, the entitlement seems to run in both directions. That's the simple the reality of the situation.

kelnos 7y ago
I don't think "entitlement" means what you think it means. Unless you're arguing that people shouldn't feel entitled to be free of harassment, in which case I don't agree with you. Yes, if you put something out there, you should expect feedback, and assume that some of that feedback is not going to be very nice. But that doesn't excuse the people giving that feedback for being rude. It doesn't excuse the fact that those people giving feedback have no inherent right to see that feedback acted upon, and expecting that is unreasonable and entitled. I'm not saying I would have acted the same way the actix developer did (in my experience as an open source maintainer I certainly have some moments I'm proud of, and others that I wish I could take back), but I'm not so quick to condemn them, either.
- bachmeier 7y ago
  Well, I'm using the dictionary definition: entitled: to furnish with proper grounds for seeking or claiming something example: this ticket entitles the bearer to free admission Being an open source maintainer doesn't mean you're entitled to recognition or praise or deference. You're not entitled to put out low-quality software and have others pretend it's awesome. You're not entitled to make claims that are false and not be called out for it. You're not even entitled to people not trashing your work. When you put your work out there because you want to be praised, that's the downside. "But that doesn't excuse the people giving that feedback for being rude." That has nothing to do with being entitled (at least not in the context of an open source project). That's basic human interaction.
  - roblabla 7y ago
    Well, you're totally missing the point then. When we say people are flaming, we mean people are providing "feedback" in a characteristically rude way. You'd think that basic human interaction dictates not being rude to eachother, but internet history says otherwise.
  - yawaramin 7y ago
    > Being an open source maintainer doesn't mean you're entitled to recognition or praise or deference. You're not entitled to put out low-quality software and have others pretend it's awesome. You're not entitled to make claims that are false and not be called out for it. You're not even entitled to people not trashing your work. That's fine and all but you are entitled to control your own repo, its issues, pull requests, and related fora. You are entitled to set the acceptable standard of communications and if you don't like the way someone is communicating you are entitled to shutting that off. See, entitlement works both ways: as a maintainer you're not entitled to a lot of things, but as users others are also not entitled to lots of things.
  - atoav 7y ago
    We all have to ask ourself which shape we want to give our feedback. You can factually say the same as the other guy, but send a very different message. When you critizise someone for using unsafe blocks, there are many ways how you could go about this. This argument here is not about whether we are allowed to point out unsafe code blocks, it is about how we do it. It is a tangible difference if your message is: "You are using unsafe there and it is not really needed, let me help" or rather: "You are using unsafe there without any reason, you idiot. Go away and never come back!" And the thing is: only one of these messages will get you closer to safe code.
- yellowapple 7y ago
  > But that doesn't excuse the people giving that feedback for being rude. From what I can tell reading the salvaged conversations, that feedback wasn't rude (IMO) up until the maintainer called the outside patch "boring" (which, IMO, was rude). Even after that, the "rudeness" was pretty mild. The entirety of this drama seems to have been self-inflicted. Blaming "reddit" for the author/maintainer being unable to handle criticism or PRs doesn't exactly change that.

kelnos 7y ago

I don't think "entitlement" means what you think it means. Unless you're arguing that people shouldn't feel entitled to be free of harassment, in which case I don't agree with you. Yes, if you put something out there, you should expect feedback, and assume that some of that feedback is not going to be very nice. But that doesn't excuse the people giving that feedback for being rude. It doesn't excuse the fact that those people giving feedback have no inherent right to see that feedback acted upon, and expecting that is unreasonable and entitled. I'm not saying I would have acted the same way the actix developer did (in my experience as an open source maintainer I certainly have some moments I'm proud of, and others that I wish I could take back), but I'm not so quick to condemn them, either.

bachmeier 7y ago
Well, I'm using the dictionary definition: entitled: to furnish with proper grounds for seeking or claiming something example: this ticket entitles the bearer to free admission Being an open source maintainer doesn't mean you're entitled to recognition or praise or deference. You're not entitled to put out low-quality software and have others pretend it's awesome. You're not entitled to make claims that are false and not be called out for it. You're not even entitled to people not trashing your work. When you put your work out there because you want to be praised, that's the downside. "But that doesn't excuse the people giving that feedback for being rude." That has nothing to do with being entitled (at least not in the context of an open source project). That's basic human interaction.
- roblabla 7y ago
  Well, you're totally missing the point then. When we say people are flaming, we mean people are providing "feedback" in a characteristically rude way. You'd think that basic human interaction dictates not being rude to eachother, but internet history says otherwise.
- yawaramin 7y ago
  > Being an open source maintainer doesn't mean you're entitled to recognition or praise or deference. You're not entitled to put out low-quality software and have others pretend it's awesome. You're not entitled to make claims that are false and not be called out for it. You're not even entitled to people not trashing your work. That's fine and all but you are entitled to control your own repo, its issues, pull requests, and related fora. You are entitled to set the acceptable standard of communications and if you don't like the way someone is communicating you are entitled to shutting that off. See, entitlement works both ways: as a maintainer you're not entitled to a lot of things, but as users others are also not entitled to lots of things.
- atoav 7y ago
  We all have to ask ourself which shape we want to give our feedback. You can factually say the same as the other guy, but send a very different message. When you critizise someone for using unsafe blocks, there are many ways how you could go about this. This argument here is not about whether we are allowed to point out unsafe code blocks, it is about how we do it. It is a tangible difference if your message is: "You are using unsafe there and it is not really needed, let me help" or rather: "You are using unsafe there without any reason, you idiot. Go away and never come back!" And the thing is: only one of these messages will get you closer to safe code.
yellowapple 7y ago
> But that doesn't excuse the people giving that feedback for being rude. From what I can tell reading the salvaged conversations, that feedback wasn't rude (IMO) up until the maintainer called the outside patch "boring" (which, IMO, was rude). Even after that, the "rudeness" was pretty mild. The entirety of this drama seems to have been self-inflicted. Blaming "reddit" for the author/maintainer being unable to handle criticism or PRs doesn't exactly change that.