3 ms·

Ah. This is that thing called "tone-policing." I frankly have no idea if you believe the same fundamentals that I do; they generally fall under the ideas of "fr

by jrm4 4y ago

Ah. This is that thing called "tone-policing." I frankly have no idea if you believe the same fundamentals that I do; they generally fall under the ideas of "free software," and they are frequently abused by the large companies and I feel it is important to call such bad behavior out as what it is; especially when perhaps professionals may have been lulled into going along with it. I'm fairly certain the "politeness" or whatever it is you're calling for here works against my goals here. I could be wrong about that, but either way I don't think what you're railing against is as near as important as the bigger idea I presented initially.

krageon 4y ago
After I wrote three lengthy paragraphs explaining to them how the espoused philosophy makes no sense, I realised I could not conceive of a reality where these arguments were made in good faith. Perhaps it is better to just not engage with it.
jodrellblank 4y ago
It isn't tone policing to call out posts which are low-effort insults to millions of people, and not coherent arguments for or against anything. There are tons of reasons people make decisions about software - it's what they learned before and can setup quickest, it's the standard in their industry, it's what their boss demanded, it's used by a customer or supplier and they need to be compatible, it's approved by a third party organisation or certification program, it's the only one a vendor will support, or they've considered software freedom and come to different conclusions than you and don't value it at all. Why should a Disney animator care whether they have the source to PhotoShop? Why should a manufacturing company CEO care that their data in an Oracle database file can't be read by third party tools? Why should an ISP care that they are paying for PowerDNS instead of using BIND9? Why should an accountant care that TurboTax can't be extended by a consultant they hire? Why should a congressperson care that Adobe licensing isn't GPL? Much easier not to discuss and instead say people "perhaps may have been lulled into going along with it". Which is empty low-effort "I'm smarter, more awake, less deceivable" tribal posturing and nothing else, and then when called out on it, try and sidestep into complaining about tone-policing instead.
- jrm4 4y ago
  I don't fundamentally disagree with any of the points you're making. I just think they are less important than the one I am making, so much so that I'm willing to risk "insulting a lot of people" as you say. Yes, I'm being "loud and mean." I agree that normally, people shouldn't be loud and mean. But I also believe that sometimes it's approrpriate. Right now, I'm reminded of when people here got panicky because youtube-dl was possibly being taken off of Github. I am not at all exaggerating when I say that the bulk of the commenters strongly appeared to have forgotten that you can just download the code yourself, perhaps host it somewhere else. Yes, I'm sensing a slow descent into what an old-timer like me, who's used to "computers that you fully control, full stop" into what I can reasonably call stupidity.

by jrm4 4y ago

krageon 4y ago

After I wrote three lengthy paragraphs explaining to them how the espoused philosophy makes no sense, I realised I could not conceive of a reality where these arguments were made in good faith. Perhaps it is better to just not engage with it.

jodrellblank 4y ago

It isn't tone policing to call out posts which are low-effort insults to millions of people, and not coherent arguments for or against anything. There are tons of reasons people make decisions about software - it's what they learned before and can setup quickest, it's the standard in their industry, it's what their boss demanded, it's used by a customer or supplier and they need to be compatible, it's approved by a third party organisation or certification program, it's the only one a vendor will support, or they've considered software freedom and come to different conclusions than you and don't value it at all. Why should a Disney animator care whether they have the source to PhotoShop? Why should a manufacturing company CEO care that their data in an Oracle database file can't be read by third party tools? Why should an ISP care that they are paying for PowerDNS instead of using BIND9? Why should an accountant care that TurboTax can't be extended by a consultant they hire? Why should a congressperson care that Adobe licensing isn't GPL? Much easier not to discuss and instead say people "perhaps may have been lulled into going along with it". Which is empty low-effort "I'm smarter, more awake, less deceivable" tribal posturing and nothing else, and then when called out on it, try and sidestep into complaining about tone-policing instead.

jrm4 4y ago
I don't fundamentally disagree with any of the points you're making. I just think they are less important than the one I am making, so much so that I'm willing to risk "insulting a lot of people" as you say. Yes, I'm being "loud and mean." I agree that normally, people shouldn't be loud and mean. But I also believe that sometimes it's approrpriate. Right now, I'm reminded of when people here got panicky because youtube-dl was possibly being taken off of Github. I am not at all exaggerating when I say that the bulk of the commenters strongly appeared to have forgotten that you can just download the code yourself, perhaps host it somewhere else. Yes, I'm sensing a slow descent into what an old-timer like me, who's used to "computers that you fully control, full stop" into what I can reasonably call stupidity.