4 ms·

This is a ridiculous take. Nothing in the parent comment even remotely hints at feeling entitled to the labor of the Musl maintainers — they just disagree with

This is a ridiculous take. Nothing in the parent comment even remotely hints at feeling entitled to the labor of the Musl maintainers — they just disagree with implementation decisions that have been made. And while I’d agree in principle that nobody is entitled to anyone else’s labor for free, I’d also add that nobody is entitled to be shielded from criticism of work they have chosen to publish, or to have that criticism be watered down to a sanitized, milquetoast version of the writer’s intended message.

camgunz 3y ago
The stuff op quoted: > intentionally-faulty software > the maintainer only caved > he's harming his users with his stubbornness is strong language and not productive. If someone at my company sincerely criticized my work in this way I'd find it unacceptable and managers would get involved. There's criticism and there's polemics, and this is the latter.
- marcus0x62 3y ago
  As it turns out, HN is not your office and HR isn’t here to “get involved.”. Thankfully. I would agree there is a line, but disagree that the original poster stepped over it. Disagreement, even vigorous disagreement is important. Calling out bad technical decisions is important. Calling out oversensitive people who want to censor online discourse to their personal tastes is also important.
  - soraminazuki 3y ago
    If criticism is "censorship," you are very much censoring me too. FYI I didn't ask anyone's post to be taken down. Furthermore, ad hominem attacks have nothing to do with "calling out bad technical decisions."
    - marcus0x62 3y ago
      Now, that is a ridiculous take. By your definition, censorious people have to describe themselves as such? The rest of us use "censor" as a term to describe the action of others.
      - soraminazuki 3y ago
        No, to censor means to remove speech and I have never defined it any other way. Calling out abuse for what it is hardly fits that definition. BTW go take my words verbatim and use it against me if my actions are genuinely hypocritical. But to do that for my actions you made up is abusive and makes you look bad.
        marcus0x62 3y ago
        Have a nice day.
  - camgunz 3y ago
    > As it turns out, HN is not your office Fair, but I'd hold HN to a higher standard. We're peers and we choose to be here. We should treat each other with kindness and respect, not contempt. I read a fair amount of contempt in OP's characterization, and I hold that separate from respectful criticism. I looked up a thread about this from 2020 [0] and it actually seems well reasoned, calm, and respectful. No one's slinging around words like "faulty", "broken", or "harm" because those tend to insult people and derail technical discussions. And FWIW, that's why I would get managers involved if this happened in the workplace. Calling people's work "broken by design" or "harmful" is how to start an argument, not how to solve a problem. If someone's acting this way, there's no way things are going well. [0]: https://www.openwall.com/lists/musl/2020/04/17/7 https://www.openwall.com/lists/musl/2020/04/17/7
soraminazuki 3y ago
This shouldn't have to be spelled out loud, but you don't ever need to misrepresent the maintainer's position to criticize a technical decision. "They're harming everyone by intentionally shipping crippled software!" Really?
- marcus0x62 3y ago
  One could say the same thing about your previous post, falsely claiming the person you replied to felt “entitled to someone’s labor,” when they said no such thing.
  - soraminazuki 3y ago
    Now, that is a ridiculous take. By your definition, entitled people have to describe themselves as such? The rest of us use "entitlement" as a term to describe the action of others. People aren't making "false claims" when they do that. Resorting to personal attacks because someone refused to implement and maintain your pet feature for free fits the description of "entitlement" in my book.
    - omniglottal 3y ago
      See "strawman fallacy". People absolutely are making false claims, including about entitlement. Your imagining someone to be entitled does not make them so, and your accusation belittles their actual, valid reasoning. It actually shows you to be the one "entitled" to your projected redeclaration of their identity and rationale - implying the accuser (you) is more likely to have narcissistic tendencies than the person holding a potentially shared value-based opinion about the facts being criticised. Furthermore, it's about irrellevant as calling out someone for being "entitled to breathe air" if you catch them criticizing the air's quality.
      - orf 3y ago
        I mean… this is a lot of ink to spill over a comment that did sound incredibly entitled.

camgunz 3y ago

The stuff op quoted: > intentionally-faulty software > the maintainer only caved > he's harming his users with his stubbornness is strong language and not productive. If someone at my company sincerely criticized my work in this way I'd find it unacceptable and managers would get involved. There's criticism and there's polemics, and this is the latter.

marcus0x62 3y ago
As it turns out, HN is not your office and HR isn’t here to “get involved.”. Thankfully. I would agree there is a line, but disagree that the original poster stepped over it. Disagreement, even vigorous disagreement is important. Calling out bad technical decisions is important. Calling out oversensitive people who want to censor online discourse to their personal tastes is also important.
- soraminazuki 3y ago
  If criticism is "censorship," you are very much censoring me too. FYI I didn't ask anyone's post to be taken down. Furthermore, ad hominem attacks have nothing to do with "calling out bad technical decisions."
  - marcus0x62 3y ago
    Now, that is a ridiculous take. By your definition, censorious people have to describe themselves as such? The rest of us use "censor" as a term to describe the action of others.
    - soraminazuki 3y ago
      No, to censor means to remove speech and I have never defined it any other way. Calling out abuse for what it is hardly fits that definition. BTW go take my words verbatim and use it against me if my actions are genuinely hypocritical. But to do that for my actions you made up is abusive and makes you look bad.
      - marcus0x62 3y ago
        Have a nice day.
- camgunz 3y ago
  > As it turns out, HN is not your office Fair, but I'd hold HN to a higher standard. We're peers and we choose to be here. We should treat each other with kindness and respect, not contempt. I read a fair amount of contempt in OP's characterization, and I hold that separate from respectful criticism. I looked up a thread about this from 2020 [0] and it actually seems well reasoned, calm, and respectful. No one's slinging around words like "faulty", "broken", or "harm" because those tend to insult people and derail technical discussions. And FWIW, that's why I would get managers involved if this happened in the workplace. Calling people's work "broken by design" or "harmful" is how to start an argument, not how to solve a problem. If someone's acting this way, there's no way things are going well. [0]: https://www.openwall.com/lists/musl/2020/04/17/7 https://www.openwall.com/lists/musl/2020/04/17/7

soraminazuki 3y ago

This shouldn't have to be spelled out loud, but you don't ever need to misrepresent the maintainer's position to criticize a technical decision. "They're harming everyone by intentionally shipping crippled software!" Really?

marcus0x62 3y ago
One could say the same thing about your previous post, falsely claiming the person you replied to felt “entitled to someone’s labor,” when they said no such thing.
- soraminazuki 3y ago
  Now, that is a ridiculous take. By your definition, entitled people have to describe themselves as such? The rest of us use "entitlement" as a term to describe the action of others. People aren't making "false claims" when they do that. Resorting to personal attacks because someone refused to implement and maintain your pet feature for free fits the description of "entitlement" in my book.
  - omniglottal 3y ago
    See "strawman fallacy". People absolutely are making false claims, including about entitlement. Your imagining someone to be entitled does not make them so, and your accusation belittles their actual, valid reasoning. It actually shows you to be the one "entitled" to your projected redeclaration of their identity and rationale - implying the accuser (you) is more likely to have narcissistic tendencies than the person holding a potentially shared value-based opinion about the facts being criticised. Furthermore, it's about irrellevant as calling out someone for being "entitled to breathe air" if you catch them criticizing the air's quality.
    - orf 3y ago
      I mean… this is a lot of ink to spill over a comment that did sound incredibly entitled.