4 ms·
I don't know. I'm inclined to believe the world would be a better place if people thought less about their principles and more about the situation at hand. I've
by seti0Cha 4y ago
I don't know. I'm inclined to believe the world would be a better place if people thought less about their principles and more about the situation at hand. I've had bad experiences with people who do things "as a matter of principle" or insisting "it's the principle of the thing". That has usually signaled behavior that is only justifiable by some abstraction, but otherwise makes no sense.
This case, for example, where SourceHut was going to make a change which would inflict inconvenience on it's users when they had a clear way to avoid it, but didn't want to because it was really Google's fault. Possibly it did some good, but from reading the whole thing, it looks like the end result is SourceHut finally agreeing to have the refresh turned off, like they could have done initially, while the Go team actually had already been working on a fix. A lot of drama, with questionable benefits is not unusual for people who do things for the principle.
- fbdab103 4y ago>while the Go team actually had already been working on a fix This is the part with which I take issue. Maybe they were working on addressing the issue, but maybe they were not. Given the acknowledged DDoSing of hosts by Google, more communication or prioritization would have been appropriate. From the outside (admittedly my only limited perspective), Drew's actions resulted in positive change for all source hosts. Heck, it is even probably less load on Google's servers.