10 ms·
> The problem here isn’t your own initiative (by all means, compile anything on any architecture you please), but whether it’s reasonable for projects to preten
by ris 4y ago
> The problem here isn’t your own initiative (by all means, compile anything on any architecture you please), but whether it’s reasonable for projects to pretend to paper over those unreliabilities (and, in doing so, accept responsibility for platforms they didn’t want to support in the first place).
Borderline agree, though the debate around this post always expanded to cover projects in general (which is not your fault).
- woodruffw 4y agoYep -- I don't want this post to be read as a dictum, but as an identification of a conflict between two principles the OSS communities generally tries to uphold: we all generally agree that (1) we should be able to do whatever we like with free and open software, and (2) that maintainers are not responsible for what we do, or for fixing our problems. Open source ate the world, which has meant a heavy lilt towards (1): we see people go out and do stuff without questioning the underlying design and system invariants that made a piece of open source software secure and desirable in the first place. That ends up eroding (2); I'd like to see us rebalance a bit back towards maintainers' interests.