3 ms·

I like this a lot -- I think one take-away that isn't explicitly mentioned (that I, as a bit of a GNOME/Wayland hater get a lot) is that "you're not paying for

by jrm4 4y ago

I like this a lot -- I think one take-away that isn't explicitly mentioned (that I, as a bit of a GNOME/Wayland hater get a lot) is that "you're not paying for it so you must not discourage what they are doing" is a pretty bad argument I hear frequently. Even if you're Free and Open Source, you're injecting code and ideas into a community. By making that public (and intended for wide use) you are opening up for criticism from anybody to say "I think your software is bad and you should stop promoting it." That's just free speech 101.

em-bee 4y ago
the primary issue is in what tone the message is sent. i consider it reasonable to expect polite and friendly interaction. freedom of speech does not give anyone the right to hurt someones feelings. if the software is bad, don't use it. if it is dangerous (you could loose work when you use it) then be explicit about the danger. "your software is bad" is a rather useless criticism. tell me why. tell me which alternative is better. tell me what would make my software better. but don't just tell me to stop promoting it, because that is not your place to say.
- jrm4 4y ago
  Of course -- no personal insults. But, here's the thing in my experience. I might believe believe your software is "bad to the point of harming the ecosystem" (which I do feel about e.g. Wayland, I think they haven't done a good enough job of preserving backward-compatibility, YMMV) At this stage, it is absolutely my place to say. And very frequently what happens is they put up arguments like yours, even when I have been explicit about the danger, which I do good-faith believe is real enough to get very critical about.
  - em-bee 4y ago
    And very frequently what happens is they put up arguments like yours, even when I have been explicit about the danger that is the challenge in every human interaction. sometimes it is difficult to tell how a message comes across. if it isn't well received, the best one can do is to back up, apologize that the message didn't come across the way it was meant to and try restating the problem in a different way. and if that doesn't work, keep trying or give up. some people are just not open to any form of criticism, and the best one can do is to try to be polite and state the problem in neutral terms to anyone who needs to hear it.
    - jrm4 4y ago
      That's one way to look at it, but mostly not mine. Places like this; I don't argue with individuals primarily to privately change their minds. I argue "in public" to get the debate out there and perhaps change the minds of the other readers.
      - em-bee 4y ago
        sure, but the same principles apply. if someone responds showing offense at your post, apologize, retry and move on.
        jrm4 4y ago
        Not if the offense is unwarranted, of course?
        em-bee 4y ago
        taking offense is almost always unwarranted. the point of an apology is not to admit that taking offense would be warranted but make clear that no offense was intended hoping to be able to continue the conversation. i like to go by this: try to avoid offending anyone with what i say, but also try to not get offended by what others say. if someone is offended, it could be something that was a trigger, or some misunderstanding, or that person is just to easily offended or there is some deeper issue that i am not aware of. either way, there is a failure in communication, and if i want to continue the conversation, i need to find away around it. in most cases an apology is a way to do that. not doing anything about the offense assumes that the other person knows that their taking offense is unwarranted. but i believe many don't, or they wouldn't have taken offense. if the person is reasonable, they will accept the apology and be able to calm down and the discussion can continue. if they are not, the conversation is most likely over, or it escalates. both are things i'd rather avoid.

by jrm4 4y ago

em-bee 4y ago

the primary issue is in what tone the message is sent. i consider it reasonable to expect polite and friendly interaction. freedom of speech does not give anyone the right to hurt someones feelings. if the software is bad, don't use it. if it is dangerous (you could loose work when you use it) then be explicit about the danger. "your software is bad" is a rather useless criticism. tell me why. tell me which alternative is better. tell me what would make my software better. but don't just tell me to stop promoting it, because that is not your place to say.

jrm4 4y ago
Of course -- no personal insults. But, here's the thing in my experience. I might believe believe your software is "bad to the point of harming the ecosystem" (which I do feel about e.g. Wayland, I think they haven't done a good enough job of preserving backward-compatibility, YMMV) At this stage, it is absolutely my place to say. And very frequently what happens is they put up arguments like yours, even when I have been explicit about the danger, which I do good-faith believe is real enough to get very critical about.
- em-bee 4y ago
  And very frequently what happens is they put up arguments like yours, even when I have been explicit about the danger that is the challenge in every human interaction. sometimes it is difficult to tell how a message comes across. if it isn't well received, the best one can do is to back up, apologize that the message didn't come across the way it was meant to and try restating the problem in a different way. and if that doesn't work, keep trying or give up. some people are just not open to any form of criticism, and the best one can do is to try to be polite and state the problem in neutral terms to anyone who needs to hear it.
  - jrm4 4y ago
    That's one way to look at it, but mostly not mine. Places like this; I don't argue with individuals primarily to privately change their minds. I argue "in public" to get the debate out there and perhaps change the minds of the other readers.
    - em-bee 4y ago
      sure, but the same principles apply. if someone responds showing offense at your post, apologize, retry and move on.
      - jrm4 4y ago
        Not if the offense is unwarranted, of course?
        em-bee 4y ago
        taking offense is almost always unwarranted. the point of an apology is not to admit that taking offense would be warranted but make clear that no offense was intended hoping to be able to continue the conversation. i like to go by this: try to avoid offending anyone with what i say, but also try to not get offended by what others say. if someone is offended, it could be something that was a trigger, or some misunderstanding, or that person is just to easily offended or there is some deeper issue that i am not aware of. either way, there is a failure in communication, and if i want to continue the conversation, i need to find away around it. in most cases an apology is a way to do that. not doing anything about the offense assumes that the other person knows that their taking offense is unwarranted. but i believe many don't, or they wouldn't have taken offense. if the person is reasonable, they will accept the apology and be able to calm down and the discussion can continue. if they are not, the conversation is most likely over, or it escalates. both are things i'd rather avoid.