3 ms·

>Sure, I can't prove that their approach is doing immense damage >that kind of behavior is shitty and makes them poor stewards of the project. This is a perfe

>Sure, I can't prove that their approach is doing immense damage >that kind of behavior is shitty and makes them poor stewards of the project. This is a perfect example of a useless, substance-free criticism. You can't prove what you're saying, you admit you don't really know what you're talking about, but you're happy to say they're shitty. It's like if you randomly walked into stores and said to the clerk "I can't prove it but you're a shitty person who's bad at your job" and then walked out. That would be like, ok? Do you think anyone is actually going to be motivated by that? Now just imagine you have a little website with your friends for your hobby and someone you don't know does this to you. They come along saying you're shit for not making everything exactly to their personal opinions. Can't you see how this is an awful way to participate in a supportive community? Really now. Repeatedly making the same nonsensical requests and criticisms isn't going to help anyone. If you seriously expect them to improve their project then you should take the same advice: improve your own criticism. Make it so good and so respectful and so helpful they can't ignore your suggestions anymore. Avoid the personal attacks telling someone they're shitty and bad, instead think about how you can support that person and build them up to be better to accomplish great things.

traverseda 4y ago
>This is a perfect example of a useless, substance-free criticism. I would argue that rather than being substance-free it is merely subjective. This thread points at plenty of real examples of problems, but they're mostly dismissed or ignored. Unfortunately most things in life are subjective. I don't consider complaints that depend on subjective things (EX: was such and such a maintainer rude during such and such a thread) to be substance-free, even though we don't have a legal test for comparative rudeness. >Make it so good and so respectful and so helpful they can't ignore your suggestions anymore. I think the SDL developers in the lined thread did that, it didn't work.
- QUrprUd1nCeicw 4y ago
  >it is merely subjective. Subjective as in, not based in any provable facts. Can you see why this isn't convincing? Is this really worth your time to go at it from that angle? >This thread points at plenty of real examples of problems No, you haven't mentioned any real problems. This discussion would have ended long ago if you did. I've been trying to point you in the direction where we talk about real problems and solutions but you're being very stubborn here. You keep trying to nit pick about perceived "rudeness" in comments from years ago that isn't even there. You're mistaking someone being short and to the point with being rude. Can you cut it out with this stuff already please? Why are you doing this? Please don't say something like "GNOME made me do it" because you know that's not true. >I think the SDL developers in the lined thread did that No, their suggestion wasn't convincing. Repeatedly making the same suggestion but louder each time isn't an improvement. You have to actually change the core of the suggestion and come up with new ideas, rather than continuously bringing up old ideas that it's already established they won't work.
  - traverseda 4y ago
    >No, their suggestion wasn't convincing. I disagree, but given that it's a subjective technical decision I don't think we're going to be able to find any kind of objective call as to what the right decision was. The problem is that all technical decisions involve balancing the requirements of multiple parties and if your ethical framework is "Gnome is all volunteers they can do what they want" that makes them completely immune to any sort of criticism. Yes, I concede that they are free to do whatever they want, but that doesn't free them from criticism. But hey, if you want to come up with some kind of objective moral framework for us to work in that's fine. >Subjective as in, not based in any provable facts. Do you think that the choice to not implement XDG-decoration is based on probable facts? Because it is also a subjective call. Maybe go read some lesswrong until you have a better handle on how to deal with subjectivity in debate: https://www.lesswrong.com/rationality https://www.lesswrong.com/rationality
    - QUrprUd1nCeicw 4y ago
      >but given that it's a subjective technical decision No, there's nothing subjective about it. The fact is, doing things the way they suggested won't fix anything. That's a fact of the code as it's written. They could change the code to fix it, but then they'd be breaking backwards compatibility. These are the objective facts. >if your ethical framework is "Gnome is all volunteers they can do what they want" That's not an ethical framework. It's a functional description of the way that open source projects work, by necessity. How do you propose volunteers make anything work if they're forced to program in every idea from every user, including all the impossible and nonsensical ideas? Or what if one user wants to expand a feature but another user wants to remove the same feature, what do they do? >Yes, I concede that they are free to do whatever they want, but that doesn't free them from criticism. Neither does it free the SDL developers from criticism from the GNOME developers, or from anyone else. It also doesn't free either me or you from criticism for making impossible suggestions. >Do you think that the choice to not implement XDG-decoration is based on probable facts? Yes, see above. The code that's currently written is an objective, provable fact. You can go look at the code right now, that's the code that's shipping on users' computers. Any decision they make is restricted by that code, unless they want users to be even more angry about how they broke backwards compatibility. You're getting confused, because the subjective part here is what they do to the code in the future. The code as it currently stands says objectively that your idea won't work without causing other problems.

traverseda 4y ago

>This is a perfect example of a useless, substance-free criticism. I would argue that rather than being substance-free it is merely subjective. This thread points at plenty of real examples of problems, but they're mostly dismissed or ignored. Unfortunately most things in life are subjective. I don't consider complaints that depend on subjective things (EX: was such and such a maintainer rude during such and such a thread) to be substance-free, even though we don't have a legal test for comparative rudeness. >Make it so good and so respectful and so helpful they can't ignore your suggestions anymore. I think the SDL developers in the lined thread did that, it didn't work.

QUrprUd1nCeicw 4y ago
>it is merely subjective. Subjective as in, not based in any provable facts. Can you see why this isn't convincing? Is this really worth your time to go at it from that angle? >This thread points at plenty of real examples of problems No, you haven't mentioned any real problems. This discussion would have ended long ago if you did. I've been trying to point you in the direction where we talk about real problems and solutions but you're being very stubborn here. You keep trying to nit pick about perceived "rudeness" in comments from years ago that isn't even there. You're mistaking someone being short and to the point with being rude. Can you cut it out with this stuff already please? Why are you doing this? Please don't say something like "GNOME made me do it" because you know that's not true. >I think the SDL developers in the lined thread did that No, their suggestion wasn't convincing. Repeatedly making the same suggestion but louder each time isn't an improvement. You have to actually change the core of the suggestion and come up with new ideas, rather than continuously bringing up old ideas that it's already established they won't work.
- traverseda 4y ago
  >No, their suggestion wasn't convincing. I disagree, but given that it's a subjective technical decision I don't think we're going to be able to find any kind of objective call as to what the right decision was. The problem is that all technical decisions involve balancing the requirements of multiple parties and if your ethical framework is "Gnome is all volunteers they can do what they want" that makes them completely immune to any sort of criticism. Yes, I concede that they are free to do whatever they want, but that doesn't free them from criticism. But hey, if you want to come up with some kind of objective moral framework for us to work in that's fine. >Subjective as in, not based in any provable facts. Do you think that the choice to not implement XDG-decoration is based on probable facts? Because it is also a subjective call. Maybe go read some lesswrong until you have a better handle on how to deal with subjectivity in debate: https://www.lesswrong.com/rationality https://www.lesswrong.com/rationality
  - QUrprUd1nCeicw 4y ago
    >but given that it's a subjective technical decision No, there's nothing subjective about it. The fact is, doing things the way they suggested won't fix anything. That's a fact of the code as it's written. They could change the code to fix it, but then they'd be breaking backwards compatibility. These are the objective facts. >if your ethical framework is "Gnome is all volunteers they can do what they want" That's not an ethical framework. It's a functional description of the way that open source projects work, by necessity. How do you propose volunteers make anything work if they're forced to program in every idea from every user, including all the impossible and nonsensical ideas? Or what if one user wants to expand a feature but another user wants to remove the same feature, what do they do? >Yes, I concede that they are free to do whatever they want, but that doesn't free them from criticism. Neither does it free the SDL developers from criticism from the GNOME developers, or from anyone else. It also doesn't free either me or you from criticism for making impossible suggestions. >Do you think that the choice to not implement XDG-decoration is based on probable facts? Yes, see above. The code that's currently written is an objective, provable fact. You can go look at the code right now, that's the code that's shipping on users' computers. Any decision they make is restricted by that code, unless they want users to be even more angry about how they broke backwards compatibility. You're getting confused, because the subjective part here is what they do to the code in the future. The code as it currently stands says objectively that your idea won't work without causing other problems.