6 ms·

The entitlement in this thread is astounding. Don't like how the project is maintained? Fork it. If you don't have anything nice to say to the person who gave y

by dyeje 7y ago

The entitlement in this thread is astounding. Don't like how the project is maintained? Fork it. If you don't have anything nice to say to the person who gave you the code _for free_, then just don't say anything at all.

drclau 7y ago
The repo currently contains a single README.md. https://github.com/actix/actix-web https://github.com/actix/actix-web Edit: I was not aware he moved it under his personal github account and it’s still accessible. Nonetheless, I still think removing it is a bit extreme.
- dyeje 7y ago
  Yea, because the maintainer was tired of being abused.
  - drclau 7y ago
    I understand how he may he feeling, but this is probably the most used web framework for Rust. He may be hurting a lot more people and projects then just the people he disagreed with. A proper way of handling this would have been to abandon the project and let someone else pick it up. My understanding is that he did move the source code under his own git user, so hopefully he’ll allow someone else to pick it and maintain.
    - rumanator 7y ago
      > I understand how he may he feeling, but this is probably the most used web framework for Rust. Not a problem. Just fork it and put in the work to maintain it. The license grants anyonr that right. What stops anyone from doing it? If that's too much to ask then perhaps it should put into perspective how project maintainers are abused.
      - drclau 7y ago
        You haven’t read my comment from two levels up. There’s nothing to fork on the original repo.
        xscott 7y ago
        There certainly is: https://github.com/fafhrd91/actix-web https://github.com/fafhrd91/actix-web
      - bryanrasmussen 7y ago
        Ok, but the arrow of time being what it is you cannot fork something usefully after all the code has been taken away. You can now fork the readme and change that. It's true I think everyone should do what I do which is to fork anything I think I might need at some point , but that isn't what you actually suggested and it isn't what the parent comment was observing could be a problem for people.
        mythz 7y ago
        As stated clearly in the README: > P.S. I moved actix-net and actix-web project to my personal github account. So he's transferred it to: https://github.com/fafhrd91/actix-web https://github.com/fafhrd91/actix-web Feel free to fork, take a copy, start a new repo. The project is dual Apache/MIT licensed so feel free to do whatever you want within its very liberal scope. What you're not entitled to do is demand anything from the author or to take up any of his time. Take his code, but don't demand anything else from him. > Nowadays supporting actix project is not fun, and be part of rust community is not fun as well. > I am done with open source. He's over the abuse and entitlement his received over the project and obviously doesn't want to spend any more of his time on it.
        bryanrasmussen 7y ago
        Sorry, I interpreted that to mean his private account, which was silly.
        7y ago
    - xscott 7y ago
      > My understanding is that he did move the source code under his own git user It's not hard to find: https://github.com/fafhrd91/actix-web https://github.com/fafhrd91/actix-web > so hopefully he’ll allow someone else to pick it and maintain. It uses the both the Apache and MIT licenses, each of which clearly allows redistribution of derivative works. It will be interesting to see if anyone (much less the abusive people) are willing to put their money where their mouths are about it. I think he's being very gracious, all things considered.
- rapnie 7y ago
  He moved the repo's to his personal account. Still there (for now): https://github.com/fafhrd91/actix-web https://github.com/fafhrd91/actix-web
magicalhippo 7y ago
Especially weird seeing as Github has made forking a very smooth way to work with a project. You fork it, make the changes you want, and then make the changes available upstream. If upstream vanishes, your fork is still around. If upstream doesn't want to merge, people can use your fork instead. And, if your changes are that much better, eventually make it the de-facto standard version of the project.
- spapas82 7y ago
  The commits you do in a fork are not visible in your GitHub commit calender until you do a PR and they are merged. For some people this is important so a "forked" project won't have many commits with merging back to master.
  - paulclinger 7y ago
    You can merge your commits into a separate branch and designate it as the "default" branch for your repository.
  - tyre 7y ago
    lol what? They won't contribute or work on something unless it touches their commit calendar? I'm kind of… I guess that's not really a use case I'm concerned with, contribution-wise. But who knows! Maybe most of open source work is done for personal vanity.
- pc2g4d 7y ago
  Yes, and it happens all the time in other projects. There's always "so-and-so's fork that implements feature X and changes Y", and it's awesome that that's a possibility since it means no project is held hostage by its maintainer, and that differences in priorities don't mean the code can't be useful for a range of use cases.
ljm 7y ago
I made much the same point in the other conversation about this. The beauty of open source code is you can take it, modify it, and even improve and rename it in a lot of cases. So much of today's internet has to be a fight or a shitstorm. For no reason at all.
Hello71 7y ago
This argument confuses and saddens me. If I give away free food which I and others know to be contaminated with foodborne pathogens, is it wrong for them to criticize it? What if I don't know, but I obtain it from a supplier which is known to persistently sell contaminated food? What if I put up a sign in very small print saying that the food comes with no warranty whatsoever and all consumers eat it at their own risk? What if I put up a large sign? What if instead of pathogens, I intentionally add lead-based decorations on the basis that they look and taste good, even if they may be slightly carcinogenic if consumed? What if I clearly state that the decorations must be removed before eating? At what point do I acquire moral culpability for the harms suffered by my customers? These sorts of comments seem to imply that there is no problem with me doing any of this, as long as the food is provided for free and consumers have the choice to not take the food. I would vehemently disagree with that claim. Uninformed choice is not a true choice, and even informed choice cannot excuse certain foreseeable harms.
- Myrmornis 7y ago
  There's a difference between leaving poisoned but attractive looking food on a sidewalk, and putting code on github. You're losing perspective regarding open source programming -- it's supposed to be fun. There seems to be a political / ideological dimension to this disagreement. Your nanny state would be correct to punish someone for leaving poisoned food out. But we don't need your nanny state in open source software. People can choose to use or not use free software. Anyone whose software has life or death implications would indeed be culpable if they make those choices rashly. But the responsibility does not lie with the maintainer.
- kelnos 7y ago
  That is an entirely specious analogy. This code will not cause someone to get sick or die. And "contaminated" vs. "not contaminated" is a binary result for food -- one is the case and one is not the case. With code, there's nearly always room for reasonable disagreement as to what is the right/good or wrong/bad way to do things, and often people argue over two (or more) perfectly fine ways of doing things that just come down to a matter of style.

by dyeje 7y ago

drclau 7y ago

The repo currently contains a single README.md. https://github.com/actix/actix-web https://github.com/actix/actix-web Edit: I was not aware he moved it under his personal github account and it’s still accessible. Nonetheless, I still think removing it is a bit extreme.

dyeje 7y ago
Yea, because the maintainer was tired of being abused.
- drclau 7y ago
  I understand how he may he feeling, but this is probably the most used web framework for Rust. He may be hurting a lot more people and projects then just the people he disagreed with. A proper way of handling this would have been to abandon the project and let someone else pick it up. My understanding is that he did move the source code under his own git user, so hopefully he’ll allow someone else to pick it and maintain.
  - rumanator 7y ago
    > I understand how he may he feeling, but this is probably the most used web framework for Rust. Not a problem. Just fork it and put in the work to maintain it. The license grants anyonr that right. What stops anyone from doing it? If that's too much to ask then perhaps it should put into perspective how project maintainers are abused.
    - drclau 7y ago
      You haven’t read my comment from two levels up. There’s nothing to fork on the original repo.
      - xscott 7y ago
        There certainly is: https://github.com/fafhrd91/actix-web https://github.com/fafhrd91/actix-web
    - bryanrasmussen 7y ago
      Ok, but the arrow of time being what it is you cannot fork something usefully after all the code has been taken away. You can now fork the readme and change that. It's true I think everyone should do what I do which is to fork anything I think I might need at some point , but that isn't what you actually suggested and it isn't what the parent comment was observing could be a problem for people.
      - mythz 7y ago
        As stated clearly in the README: > P.S. I moved actix-net and actix-web project to my personal github account. So he's transferred it to: https://github.com/fafhrd91/actix-web https://github.com/fafhrd91/actix-web Feel free to fork, take a copy, start a new repo. The project is dual Apache/MIT licensed so feel free to do whatever you want within its very liberal scope. What you're not entitled to do is demand anything from the author or to take up any of his time. Take his code, but don't demand anything else from him. > Nowadays supporting actix project is not fun, and be part of rust community is not fun as well. > I am done with open source. He's over the abuse and entitlement his received over the project and obviously doesn't want to spend any more of his time on it.
        bryanrasmussen 7y ago
        Sorry, I interpreted that to mean his private account, which was silly.
      - 7y ago
  - xscott 7y ago
    > My understanding is that he did move the source code under his own git user It's not hard to find: https://github.com/fafhrd91/actix-web https://github.com/fafhrd91/actix-web > so hopefully he’ll allow someone else to pick it and maintain. It uses the both the Apache and MIT licenses, each of which clearly allows redistribution of derivative works. It will be interesting to see if anyone (much less the abusive people) are willing to put their money where their mouths are about it. I think he's being very gracious, all things considered.
rapnie 7y ago
He moved the repo's to his personal account. Still there (for now): https://github.com/fafhrd91/actix-web https://github.com/fafhrd91/actix-web

magicalhippo 7y ago

Especially weird seeing as Github has made forking a very smooth way to work with a project. You fork it, make the changes you want, and then make the changes available upstream. If upstream vanishes, your fork is still around. If upstream doesn't want to merge, people can use your fork instead. And, if your changes are that much better, eventually make it the de-facto standard version of the project.

spapas82 7y ago
The commits you do in a fork are not visible in your GitHub commit calender until you do a PR and they are merged. For some people this is important so a "forked" project won't have many commits with merging back to master.
- paulclinger 7y ago
  You can merge your commits into a separate branch and designate it as the "default" branch for your repository.
- tyre 7y ago
  lol what? They won't contribute or work on something unless it touches their commit calendar? I'm kind of… I guess that's not really a use case I'm concerned with, contribution-wise. But who knows! Maybe most of open source work is done for personal vanity.
pc2g4d 7y ago
Yes, and it happens all the time in other projects. There's always "so-and-so's fork that implements feature X and changes Y", and it's awesome that that's a possibility since it means no project is held hostage by its maintainer, and that differences in priorities don't mean the code can't be useful for a range of use cases.

ljm 7y ago

I made much the same point in the other conversation about this. The beauty of open source code is you can take it, modify it, and even improve and rename it in a lot of cases. So much of today's internet has to be a fight or a shitstorm. For no reason at all.

Hello71 7y ago

This argument confuses and saddens me. If I give away free food which I and others know to be contaminated with foodborne pathogens, is it wrong for them to criticize it? What if I don't know, but I obtain it from a supplier which is known to persistently sell contaminated food? What if I put up a sign in very small print saying that the food comes with no warranty whatsoever and all consumers eat it at their own risk? What if I put up a large sign? What if instead of pathogens, I intentionally add lead-based decorations on the basis that they look and taste good, even if they may be slightly carcinogenic if consumed? What if I clearly state that the decorations must be removed before eating? At what point do I acquire moral culpability for the harms suffered by my customers? These sorts of comments seem to imply that there is no problem with me doing any of this, as long as the food is provided for free and consumers have the choice to not take the food. I would vehemently disagree with that claim. Uninformed choice is not a true choice, and even informed choice cannot excuse certain foreseeable harms.

Myrmornis 7y ago
There's a difference between leaving poisoned but attractive looking food on a sidewalk, and putting code on github. You're losing perspective regarding open source programming -- it's supposed to be fun. There seems to be a political / ideological dimension to this disagreement. Your nanny state would be correct to punish someone for leaving poisoned food out. But we don't need your nanny state in open source software. People can choose to use or not use free software. Anyone whose software has life or death implications would indeed be culpable if they make those choices rashly. But the responsibility does not lie with the maintainer.
kelnos 7y ago
That is an entirely specious analogy. This code will not cause someone to get sick or die. And "contaminated" vs. "not contaminated" is a binary result for food -- one is the case and one is not the case. With code, there's nearly always room for reasonable disagreement as to what is the right/good or wrong/bad way to do things, and often people argue over two (or more) perfectly fine ways of doing things that just come down to a matter of style.