4 ms·
Yes ok, I did read the thread but didn't get the reference. I wouldn't say it's "quite remarkable", more simply that I misunderstood. My apologies. But I sta
by wrasee 2y ago
Yes ok, I did read the thread but didn't get the reference. I wouldn't say it's "quite remarkable", more simply that I misunderstood. My apologies.
But I stand by the broader point that I do not think his attitude is at all constructive or helpful, and while I am sure he is fed of up what he views as entitled users this is not a productive way to handle it. The toxicity is that it casts shade on FOSS and pushes people away from the community. And VLC would be half what it is today without it's users. He would do well to remember that, too.
- FabHK 2y agoAh, fair enough. I think we agree mostly then - he is fed up, he is justified in it, yet it is not very productive. (I wouldn't call it toxic, though.)
- marcus_holmes 2y ago> And VLC would be half what it is today without it's users. He would do well to remember that, too. I disagree. It would be exactly the same as it is now without the users. The users have not contributed anything to the project. Popularity doesn't write code, it just creates communication overhead. Again, this is not commercial software. Commercial software needs popularity. For FOSS projects, popularity is cool and can be an ego-boost for the maintainers, even open some doors and get some funding, but it's not the point of thing (and never covers costs anyway). The point is to write some good code that scratches some itch the maintainers have. That whole point of view from the users, of "you owe us because your thing is popular now" is toxic entitlement. If you didn't contribute to the project, you didn't affect it, and you're owed nothing, absolutely nothing, by the maintainers. Everyone would do well to remember that.