4 ms·

>Do you not see the difference between the linux kernel used on many millions of devices and a terminal emulator with a niche audience? 100 people could be turn

by jasode 5y ago

>Do you not see the difference between the linux kernel used on many millions of devices and a terminal emulator with a niche audience? 100 people could be turned off from pursuing their contributions to linux to completion for every 1 person who manages to get something through Your comparison is flawed because you're leaving out the fact that the Torvald's Linux kernel was also a tiny niche project in 1991 and that atmosphere of harsh critique has been there from the beginning. And yet programmers kept contributing code to Torvald's small project in the 1990s and that evidence of behavior contradicts the gp's rhetorical question of: "Why would anyone even attempt to contribute if their efforts are likely to be dismissed in this way?" Linux wasn't on a million devices in 1990s so mentioning that later fact is not relevant to its survival characteristics.

stormbrew 5y ago
While that's true, do you think maybe a few things have changed about the nature of coding or open source in the intervening 30 years? Anyways, I'll ignore for the moment that your argument wasn't actually about linux in 1991, since you used an example from 2014 and said that people continue to contribute, implying that you think recent friction is relevant, because either way it doesn't hold water. Even by 1995 Linux was already on its way to becoming a juggernaut, so the window of time in which Linux was "small" is pretty short in the grand scheme of things, and I think a convincing argument could be made that of the "free OS for x86 machines" projects that existed in the early 90s, linux was actually the easiest to contribute to for various reasons. I think it's actually likely to be an example of the opposite of what you're suggesting, which seems to be that "friction causes no harm". We might all be using something derived from 386BSD or Mach (perhaps even HURD!) if that were the case. In other words, I don't think "Linux in 1991" is a substitute for an argument about "Alacritty in 2021". There is very little in common between these two projects or circumstances.
- jasode 5y ago
  > argument wasn't actually about linux in 1991, since you used an example from 2014 and said that people continue to contribute, implying that you think recent friction is relevant, No, my argument was about the entire timeline of Linux kernel which was a continuation of gp's (xyzzy_plugh) example when he wrote: >Take a look on LKML, or Git's mailing list, or on any serious project from the last 20 years. I just picked one random example from the last 20 years that happened to be from 2014. It could have been any of the hundreds of harsh messages in the USENET archives of 1990s of Linus and others berating people. Linus's tone was even more hostile before 2014. > what you're suggesting, which seems to be that "friction causes no harm". I'm not suggesting that at all. Instead, I'm pointing out that the gp's mental model of new & incompetent programmers not "attempting to contribute" because of an unwelcoming atmosphere is not correct. The Linux kernel has always had newbies attempt to contribute bad code even when it was a "toy project" compared to Alacritty. To put it another way using a reverse perspective from gp (klelatti): A project that publicly advertises its dismissive attitude towards incompetent programmers also _attracts_ a certain subset of programmers who think they can meet the high bar to contribute. This counterintuitive reverse psychology does not seem to be included in his mental model.
  - stormbrew 5y ago
    Linux hasn't been a "toy project" compared to alacritty since maybe like.. 1992? I got my first CD-ROM with linux on it (yggdrasil) in 1993 or 1994. The scale difference here is so massive, even going back quite far. I think you're really underestimating the rapidity with which linux grew, as well as the pure cachet that linux (or any project associated with Linus, like git) has and has had for most of its existence that makes it fundamentally different in terms of motivation and appeal from basically any other OSS project.

by jasode 5y ago

stormbrew 5y ago

While that's true, do you think maybe a few things have changed about the nature of coding or open source in the intervening 30 years? Anyways, I'll ignore for the moment that your argument wasn't actually about linux in 1991, since you used an example from 2014 and said that people continue to contribute, implying that you think recent friction is relevant, because either way it doesn't hold water. Even by 1995 Linux was already on its way to becoming a juggernaut, so the window of time in which Linux was "small" is pretty short in the grand scheme of things, and I think a convincing argument could be made that of the "free OS for x86 machines" projects that existed in the early 90s, linux was actually the easiest to contribute to for various reasons. I think it's actually likely to be an example of the opposite of what you're suggesting, which seems to be that "friction causes no harm". We might all be using something derived from 386BSD or Mach (perhaps even HURD!) if that were the case. In other words, I don't think "Linux in 1991" is a substitute for an argument about "Alacritty in 2021". There is very little in common between these two projects or circumstances.

jasode 5y ago
> argument wasn't actually about linux in 1991, since you used an example from 2014 and said that people continue to contribute, implying that you think recent friction is relevant, No, my argument was about the entire timeline of Linux kernel which was a continuation of gp's (xyzzy_plugh) example when he wrote: >Take a look on LKML, or Git's mailing list, or on any serious project from the last 20 years. I just picked one random example from the last 20 years that happened to be from 2014. It could have been any of the hundreds of harsh messages in the USENET archives of 1990s of Linus and others berating people. Linus's tone was even more hostile before 2014. > what you're suggesting, which seems to be that "friction causes no harm". I'm not suggesting that at all. Instead, I'm pointing out that the gp's mental model of new & incompetent programmers not "attempting to contribute" because of an unwelcoming atmosphere is not correct. The Linux kernel has always had newbies attempt to contribute bad code even when it was a "toy project" compared to Alacritty. To put it another way using a reverse perspective from gp (klelatti): A project that publicly advertises its dismissive attitude towards incompetent programmers also _attracts_ a certain subset of programmers who think they can meet the high bar to contribute. This counterintuitive reverse psychology does not seem to be included in his mental model.
- stormbrew 5y ago
  Linux hasn't been a "toy project" compared to alacritty since maybe like.. 1992? I got my first CD-ROM with linux on it (yggdrasil) in 1993 or 1994. The scale difference here is so massive, even going back quite far. I think you're really underestimating the rapidity with which linux grew, as well as the pure cachet that linux (or any project associated with Linus, like git) has and has had for most of its existence that makes it fundamentally different in terms of motivation and appeal from basically any other OSS project.