4 ms·

> What you are going to get is people separating out into 2 camps, those that believe in individuality, and those that believe in more collectivism. I agree w

by cxr 5y ago

> What you are going to get is people separating out into 2 camps, those that believe in individuality, and those that believe in more collectivism. I agree wholeheartedly with this statement, but we're diametrically opposed on how these two groups are allocated. I.e., the people you're labelling as collectivists I are in the other group, and vice versa. People who think GitHub did right are a real me-first bunch, not collectivists.

shadowgovt 5y ago
I'm not sure how we get to me-first when the story is one actor using the wide-cast popularity of packages he had admin rights to to intentionally cause harm. It's a "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" situation.
- outsomnia 5y ago
  It's a bit mind-boggling that FOSS authors who give their work away for free are the selfish baddies, and Microsoft of all people, are the communistic heroes in your telling.
  - shadowgovt 5y ago
    Not all FOSS are selfish baddies. Not even most. Not even many. But Marak specifically is, and Microsoft being the good actor is indicative of how badly he messed up. If his goal was to make a statement about big corporations taking more than they give to FOSS, arranging things so Microsoft gets to be the hero was a foolish way to go about it.
  - fault1 5y ago
    I mean, catering to the needs of the many rather than the few has pretty much been npm policy since left-pad-gate: https://twitter.com/seldo/status/712417019686100992 https://twitter.com/seldo/status/712417019686100992 https://blog.npmjs.org/post/141905368000/changes-to-npms-unpublish-policy https://blog.npmjs.org/post/141905368000/changes-to-npms-unp...
  - smt88 5y ago
    > It's a bit mind-boggling that FOSS authors who give their work away for free are the selfish baddies This is a straw man. No one made this generalization. Marak, specifically, is a "selfish baddy", and it has nothing to do with FOSS. It has to do with his abuse of Github, npm, and Faker.js (which other people also contributed to) to distribute malware. None of that can be generalized to a position about FOSS, Microsoft, or any other nonsense you're trying to extrapolate. It's specifically about a bad actor who was removed from a platform.
    - outsomnia 5y ago
      > or any other nonsense you're trying to extrapolate. Sorry you were complaining about straw man arguments?
      - DonHopkins 5y ago
        Yes he was, and you were making them.
        outsomnia 5y ago
        Are you sure you understood my point? >> It's a "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" situation. > It's a bit mind-boggling that FOSS authors who give their work away for free are the selfish baddies, and Microsoft of all people, are the communistic heroes in your telling. The discussion is about Github - microsoft - undoing the author's changes, the guy I replied to saying that this was good because he felt the author was "doing harm". So he definitely is saying that microsoft are the heroes there defeating "harm". And since he is supposed to be "doing harm" for his own benefit, the FOSS author being overridden by microsoft is the "selfish baddie". For my edification, if you have a moment you can you help me understand where my comment failed to hew to a valid analysis of that part of the discussion and became some nasty straw manning activity?

by cxr 5y ago

shadowgovt 5y ago

I'm not sure how we get to me-first when the story is one actor using the wide-cast popularity of packages he had admin rights to to intentionally cause harm. It's a "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" situation.

outsomnia 5y ago
It's a bit mind-boggling that FOSS authors who give their work away for free are the selfish baddies, and Microsoft of all people, are the communistic heroes in your telling.
- shadowgovt 5y ago
  Not all FOSS are selfish baddies. Not even most. Not even many. But Marak specifically is, and Microsoft being the good actor is indicative of how badly he messed up. If his goal was to make a statement about big corporations taking more than they give to FOSS, arranging things so Microsoft gets to be the hero was a foolish way to go about it.
- fault1 5y ago
  I mean, catering to the needs of the many rather than the few has pretty much been npm policy since left-pad-gate: https://twitter.com/seldo/status/712417019686100992 https://twitter.com/seldo/status/712417019686100992 https://blog.npmjs.org/post/141905368000/changes-to-npms-unpublish-policy https://blog.npmjs.org/post/141905368000/changes-to-npms-unp...
- smt88 5y ago
  > It's a bit mind-boggling that FOSS authors who give their work away for free are the selfish baddies This is a straw man. No one made this generalization. Marak, specifically, is a "selfish baddy", and it has nothing to do with FOSS. It has to do with his abuse of Github, npm, and Faker.js (which other people also contributed to) to distribute malware. None of that can be generalized to a position about FOSS, Microsoft, or any other nonsense you're trying to extrapolate. It's specifically about a bad actor who was removed from a platform.
  - outsomnia 5y ago
    > or any other nonsense you're trying to extrapolate. Sorry you were complaining about straw man arguments?
    - DonHopkins 5y ago
      Yes he was, and you were making them.
      - outsomnia 5y ago
        Are you sure you understood my point? >> It's a "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" situation. > It's a bit mind-boggling that FOSS authors who give their work away for free are the selfish baddies, and Microsoft of all people, are the communistic heroes in your telling. The discussion is about Github - microsoft - undoing the author's changes, the guy I replied to saying that this was good because he felt the author was "doing harm". So he definitely is saying that microsoft are the heroes there defeating "harm". And since he is supposed to be "doing harm" for his own benefit, the FOSS author being overridden by microsoft is the "selfish baddie". For my edification, if you have a moment you can you help me understand where my comment failed to hew to a valid analysis of that part of the discussion and became some nasty straw manning activity?