4 ms·

This comment is aimed at the people who made this argument, not you specifically. This is a completely ridiculous strawman. If a corporation needs strict cont

This comment is aimed at the people who made this argument, not you specifically. This is a completely ridiculous strawman. If a corporation needs strict controls then they don't allow for auto-updated software without vetting. They could have asked for a policy to disable the integration but they didn't, instead those people screamed about how they were going to have to completely block iTerm which showed their incompetence. This was in beta for quite a while and none of these "serious IT people" cared so either they are asleep at the wheel (not vetting beta versions) or they allow for auto-updates to software they don't control, either way it screams incompetence to me. Also we are talking about a terminal here, a tool that can connect wherever the developer tells it to connect to. Are you telling me these companies lock down where a developer can SSH to but are too stupid to block traffic to OpenAI? Or they don't lock down where a developer can SSH and therefore don't talk to me about "strict controls". Make it make sense. It just doesn't. This argument never held any water for me.

pseudalopex 2y ago
Various people suggested or demanded various things for various reasons. Some described company controls. Some described company policies without controls. Some described their own strong feelings. Some had auto updated. Some had not. Some did not say. Some supported their companies' policies. Some stressed the policies were out of their control. Some did not say. Some asked how to make sure the integration was disabled. Some did ask for a setting an IT department could manage. Some demanded a plugin or separate build. Some said a plugin would work for them. Many things don't make sense if you assume everyone you disagree with are a collective.
- joshstrange 2y ago
  I didn't assume they were a collective. I read through many of the comments on the GitLab issue as they were happening and there wasn't as single valid complaint. Not one. Zero. Zilch. It was opt in, full stop. That should have been the end of this aside from IT managers asking for a group policy or a was to disable the feature (in a nice way). Everyone complaining could either not update or move to a different tool and ask for a refund... oh wait... that's right, this was open source software. And people wonder why no one wants to maintain open source software. Just add this whole ordeal to the ever-growing pile of reasons why it's almost not worth doing. People are so entitled. My personal favorite were the people that said "If you remove this I'll start support you monetarily", which I assume 99% of those people were lying through their teeth based on the lack of spike in new donations to his patreon [0]. [0] https://graphtreon.com/creator/gnachman https://graphtreon.com/creator/gnachman
  - pseudalopex 2y ago
    You combined parts of different comments, ignored others, and claimed the combination represented all. Some were IT managers. Some were users capable to speak for their IT managers. Some did not say. There was no reason comments should have been limited to identified IT managers. Some asked how to make sure the feature was disabled. Some did ask for a group policy. Some asked for a plugin or separate build because a group policy would not satisfy their company's requirements. The maintainer solicited these requests even though he disagreed with the requirements. Some blocked the update. Some rolled back. You must know unsupported software has costs. Do people wonder why more people don't maintain open source software? Most people don't maintain open source software. They have reasons. I think they can imagine other people not maintaining open source software for the same reasons. I maintained open source software. Attitudes like yours tired me more than the rude minority of users. Patreon is 1 of 6 donation methods. And I don't think the people who offered to pay $50 meant monthly.

pseudalopex 2y ago

Various people suggested or demanded various things for various reasons. Some described company controls. Some described company policies without controls. Some described their own strong feelings. Some had auto updated. Some had not. Some did not say. Some supported their companies' policies. Some stressed the policies were out of their control. Some did not say. Some asked how to make sure the integration was disabled. Some did ask for a setting an IT department could manage. Some demanded a plugin or separate build. Some said a plugin would work for them. Many things don't make sense if you assume everyone you disagree with are a collective.

joshstrange 2y ago
I didn't assume they were a collective. I read through many of the comments on the GitLab issue as they were happening and there wasn't as single valid complaint. Not one. Zero. Zilch. It was opt in, full stop. That should have been the end of this aside from IT managers asking for a group policy or a was to disable the feature (in a nice way). Everyone complaining could either not update or move to a different tool and ask for a refund... oh wait... that's right, this was open source software. And people wonder why no one wants to maintain open source software. Just add this whole ordeal to the ever-growing pile of reasons why it's almost not worth doing. People are so entitled. My personal favorite were the people that said "If you remove this I'll start support you monetarily", which I assume 99% of those people were lying through their teeth based on the lack of spike in new donations to his patreon [0]. [0] https://graphtreon.com/creator/gnachman https://graphtreon.com/creator/gnachman
- pseudalopex 2y ago
  You combined parts of different comments, ignored others, and claimed the combination represented all. Some were IT managers. Some were users capable to speak for their IT managers. Some did not say. There was no reason comments should have been limited to identified IT managers. Some asked how to make sure the feature was disabled. Some did ask for a group policy. Some asked for a plugin or separate build because a group policy would not satisfy their company's requirements. The maintainer solicited these requests even though he disagreed with the requirements. Some blocked the update. Some rolled back. You must know unsupported software has costs. Do people wonder why more people don't maintain open source software? Most people don't maintain open source software. They have reasons. I think they can imagine other people not maintaining open source software for the same reasons. I maintained open source software. Attitudes like yours tired me more than the rude minority of users. Patreon is 1 of 6 donation methods. And I don't think the people who offered to pay $50 meant monthly.