3 ms·
This is what has always rubbed me the wrong way: (a) if it's given away for free, you do not have a right to complain about its quality, and (b) if you do compl
by Koshkin 7y ago
This is what has always rubbed me the wrong way: (a) if it's given away for free, you do not have a right to complain about its quality, and (b) if you do complain, then why don't you go ahead and contribute. A gift horse, I know, but still...
- benchaney 7y agoIf the quality is poor people have the right to say so, regardless of the cost. If the projects existence is causing issues for some people, they have a right to complain, even if it is creating a free benefit for someone else. Why would someone contribute to a project they think is inferior? Basically, I don’t understand your objection.
- Koshkin 7y agoI should have put (a) and (b) in quotes.
- jcelerier 7y ago> ) if it's given away for free, you do not have a right to complain about its quality What ? This does not make sense. Being free does not give any passes.
- kevinmgranger 7y agoConsidering the few lines that are mentioned as libc devs turning down feature requests, maybe they've tried.
- takeda 7y agoI disagree, sometimes presence of something (even if free) can add more work for someone else. For example imagine that you maintain a popular application, you start receiving issues that your application doesn't work with musl. You try to fix it, but musl doesn't provide a reliable way to detect itself. You try to submit a patch but it is rejected. You absolutely have right to complain, lack of musl would prevent you from wasting time on making your application work with it.