3 ms·

Can Linus single-handedly block changes from getting into Linux? That just seems crazy to me if he can. I get that DHH and Linus have pulpits, but that's all

Can Linus single-handedly block changes from getting into Linux? That just seems crazy to me if he can. I get that DHH and Linus have pulpits, but that's all they should have. It's just extremely disappointing to hear someone say something can't get in, not because of quality, but because there's one person who doesn't like it. With that said, people do fork Linux, see Android. Do people fork RoR and actually produce versions that are used by a non-trivial set of users?

philwelch 15y ago
How exactly do you think an open source software project should be managed? People are going to have disagreements about changes, and there needs to be some method of adjudicating those disagreements. Democracy is near-impossible in those circumstances because key problems like suffrage (who counts as enough of a contributor to have a vote?) are hard to fix, and because actual technical expertise is important to decision-making. Wikipedia is probably the best example of a project that's run democratically, by consensus at least, and the net result is that more effort is wasted on politicking than actually writing content. The only reason this even works for Wikipedia is because there's no shortage of people who can write and copyedit encyclopedia articles. Programmers are more scarce, and more allergic to politics. So benevolent dictatorship it is, plus the freedom to fork. As for Rails, changes like using jQuery instead of Prototype (pre-3.1), or using HAML or something like that doesn't actually require making any code changes. In fact, these controversies are classic bikeshed arguments. It's not a serious criticism of Rails that the default gemfile doesn't include a gem you prefer, because you can change the gemfile yourself. It would be a serious criticism of Rails--and, indeed, a reason to fork--if, for instance, there was strong disagreement with how Arel is implemented. But there's 100x more Rails developers with an opinion over HAML vs ERB than there are Rails developers with the slightest clue about how to implement Arel.
- kenjackson 15y ago
  How exactly do you think an open source software project should be managed? People are going to have disagreements about changes, and there needs to be some method of adjudicating those disagreements. Democracy is near-impossible in those circumstances because key problems like suffrage (who counts as enough of a contributor to have a vote?) are hard to fix, and because actual technical expertise is important to decision-making. Of course there will be disagreements, but no single person should have so much power as to block changes. I have no particular care about HAML. But rather the notion that any piece of technology isn't in popular OSS like RoR because one person objects. I find that offensive. Wikipedia is probably the best example of a project that's run democratically, by consensus at least, and the net result is that more effort is wasted on politicking than actually writing content. The net result is that its useful, LOTS of content generated, and democratic. Arguing is part of a democracy. I don't mind it. So benevolent dictatorship it is For all the talk of freedom, this is disappointing.
  - chriseppstein 15y ago
    | For all the talk of freedom, this is disappointing. You're incredibly naive then. Freedom comes from the license. You can fork and modify to your heart's content. This is how open source freedom works. If you think you can do it better, then do it better in your project. Rails is not some sort of public good that belongs to the people. It is a project that people work very hard on and then give away. And for anyone to suggest that they should not get to decide how things work on the thing that they give away free of charge and for modification is both ludicrous and makes you sound very ungrateful. Successful projects are successful because the leaders do a good job. They're good at listening, good at saying no, good at rallying support, and good at working with their users and their team. Your vote is with your shoes.
    - kenjackson 15y ago
      Your vote is with your shoes. Indeed. With this I do agree.
  - philwelch 15y ago
    Have you ever organized, maintained, or contributed to any kind of open source project yourself, or are you speaking out of ignorance and idealism?
tjogin 15y ago
First. Using HAML in your project involves all of adding the line "gem 'haml'" to your gemfile. It's not a big deal. Second. You just glanced over the possibility that DHH doesn't like HAML for a rational reason, like for instance maybe he doesn't think HAML is that big an improvement over HTML and therefore not worth being a default setting. It's not an irrational dislike that has nothing to do with the qualities of the library itself. I think you underestimate DHH as well as the rest of the Rails core group. And yes, Linus can single handedly stop anything from getting into Linux. This is how most open source projects are run, there is a leader at the top and as long as he/she is doing a good job, people follow.

philwelch 15y ago

How exactly do you think an open source software project should be managed? People are going to have disagreements about changes, and there needs to be some method of adjudicating those disagreements. Democracy is near-impossible in those circumstances because key problems like suffrage (who counts as enough of a contributor to have a vote?) are hard to fix, and because actual technical expertise is important to decision-making. Wikipedia is probably the best example of a project that's run democratically, by consensus at least, and the net result is that more effort is wasted on politicking than actually writing content. The only reason this even works for Wikipedia is because there's no shortage of people who can write and copyedit encyclopedia articles. Programmers are more scarce, and more allergic to politics. So benevolent dictatorship it is, plus the freedom to fork. As for Rails, changes like using jQuery instead of Prototype (pre-3.1), or using HAML or something like that doesn't actually require making any code changes. In fact, these controversies are classic bikeshed arguments. It's not a serious criticism of Rails that the default gemfile doesn't include a gem you prefer, because you can change the gemfile yourself. It would be a serious criticism of Rails--and, indeed, a reason to fork--if, for instance, there was strong disagreement with how Arel is implemented. But there's 100x more Rails developers with an opinion over HAML vs ERB than there are Rails developers with the slightest clue about how to implement Arel.

kenjackson 15y ago
How exactly do you think an open source software project should be managed? People are going to have disagreements about changes, and there needs to be some method of adjudicating those disagreements. Democracy is near-impossible in those circumstances because key problems like suffrage (who counts as enough of a contributor to have a vote?) are hard to fix, and because actual technical expertise is important to decision-making. Of course there will be disagreements, but no single person should have so much power as to block changes. I have no particular care about HAML. But rather the notion that any piece of technology isn't in popular OSS like RoR because one person objects. I find that offensive. Wikipedia is probably the best example of a project that's run democratically, by consensus at least, and the net result is that more effort is wasted on politicking than actually writing content. The net result is that its useful, LOTS of content generated, and democratic. Arguing is part of a democracy. I don't mind it. So benevolent dictatorship it is For all the talk of freedom, this is disappointing.
- chriseppstein 15y ago
  | For all the talk of freedom, this is disappointing. You're incredibly naive then. Freedom comes from the license. You can fork and modify to your heart's content. This is how open source freedom works. If you think you can do it better, then do it better in your project. Rails is not some sort of public good that belongs to the people. It is a project that people work very hard on and then give away. And for anyone to suggest that they should not get to decide how things work on the thing that they give away free of charge and for modification is both ludicrous and makes you sound very ungrateful. Successful projects are successful because the leaders do a good job. They're good at listening, good at saying no, good at rallying support, and good at working with their users and their team. Your vote is with your shoes.
  - kenjackson 15y ago
    Your vote is with your shoes. Indeed. With this I do agree.
- philwelch 15y ago
  Have you ever organized, maintained, or contributed to any kind of open source project yourself, or are you speaking out of ignorance and idealism?

tjogin 15y ago

First. Using HAML in your project involves all of adding the line "gem 'haml'" to your gemfile. It's not a big deal. Second. You just glanced over the possibility that DHH doesn't like HAML for a rational reason, like for instance maybe he doesn't think HAML is that big an improvement over HTML and therefore not worth being a default setting. It's not an irrational dislike that has nothing to do with the qualities of the library itself. I think you underestimate DHH as well as the rest of the Rails core group. And yes, Linus can single handedly stop anything from getting into Linux. This is how most open source projects are run, there is a leader at the top and as long as he/she is doing a good job, people follow.