5 ms·

Martin has worked hard on Asahi, but comes of as looking for drama and virtue signalling oftentimes. I'd give this to Linus.

Cumpiler69 2y ago
>but comes of as looking for drama and virtue signalling oftentimes It's easier to name the major Linux FOSS projects that DON'T have drama and virtue signaling than the ones with. If you read the Github comments on System-D, GNOME, etc, it's like watching children bickering on Sega VS Nintendo. Turns out FOSS devs are humas just like everybody else and suffer from the same flaws.
- randmeerkat 2y ago
  > Turns out FOSS devs are humas just like everybody else and suffer from the same flaws. It is rather anticlimactic. I had always imagined FOSS to be this free exchange of ideas, thoughtful consideration, and intentional action. Seeing what it has become though… Maybe closed source is better.
  - duxup 2y ago
    I hate to mention this but closed source appears to involve humans too. I was disappointed when I discovered this as well.
    - throawayonthe 2y ago
      [dead]
    - renewedrebecca 2y ago
      "People are a problem" - Douglas Adams
  - Dansvidania 2y ago
    FOSS devs put a lot of time in what they do and they are understandably attached to whether what they do is good/successful, at least in the same proportion the general population is (but arguably more due to how much dedication goes into FOSS, kind of by construction)
  - aleph_minus_one 2y ago
    > Maybe closed source is better. At least in some cases this is plausible. The money people get for working on closed source software irons out some issues, for example: Some people who voluntarily work on open source code do it for self-actualization, which indicates that they have a strong desire to push their wishes through. This implies that a lot of drama gets involved if these people don't get their way.
  - flohofwoe 2y ago
    > Seeing what it has become though... Was it ever different? Not as far as I can remember at least. I think one of the main strengths of open source development is that it works despite the drama. With open source projects, everybody is free to start their own fork over disagreements, and if the fork actually turns out to be objectively better it will replace the original project. > Maybe closed source is better. It's the same and worse over there, the drama just isn't public.
    - randmeerkat 2y ago
      > It's the same and worse over there, the drama just isn't public. At least you’re getting paid. What’s the point of spending one’s free time arguing with strangers on the internet over some code that will be refactored anyway ten years from now..? Life is short, have fun, enjoy it. If you’re spending time or money on something that sucks, walk away.
    - n144q 2y ago
      This is much less likely in a company. Any sane company decides on a clear direction which way to go. Either do X and put resources in it, or not and instead focus on something else. They may change directions, but never "maybe X" at a specific point in time. Someone at the company makes a decision on this. Of course, with notable exceptions. See Apple Car, Android tablets etc.
  - arp242 2y ago
    > Seeing what it has become though… Maybe closed source is better. You thought it was better in the past? Read up on the great ncurses maintainer drama. Or the NetBSD/OpenBSD split. Or FreeBSD/DragonflyBSD split. Or the Emacs forks, GNU libc forks, GCC fork, etc. etc. etc. This kind of drama has always existed. Difficult people have always existed. And even good people have always been struggling with their emotions. And in all my closed-source $dayjobs I've had to deal with all of that too. Sometimes significantly worse than I'm seeing here.
  - ThrowawayR2 2y ago
    > "Maybe closed source is better." I assure you it isn't; it really, really isn't. You don't see the drama because 1) it's behind closed doors and 2) because the people involved know their job is at risk if they cross the line.
  - toast0 2y ago
    > Maybe closed source is better. I've had similar pissing matches in closed source development, instigated by me and not... Often, these things get resolved or left simmering without any public visibility, so that's nice as a user. And there's usually a somewhat clear heirarchy of authority, where the boss can say I don't care who's right, do X; which resolves issues in ways that sometimes a technically minded open source project can't; that can often help with bikeshedding between usable options. But sometimes you just keep working somewhere because deep in your heart of hearts you want to do it your way, and once that other person quits or maybe even goes on vacation, you can. And sometimes people endeavor to actively push that person out, which I guess I've seen on FOSS drama too, but office politics have a way of lurking under the surface more, IMHO.
- bmicraft 2y ago
  It's called systemd, all lowercase, no punctuation :)
- wolvesechoes 2y ago
  "Turns out FOSS devs are humas just like everybody else and suffer from the same flaws." Hell no. FOSS communities, as other spaces created by permanently online individuals, definitely have higher-than-average number of mentally unhinged snowflakes.
  - Cumpiler69 2y ago
    [dead]
duxup 2y ago
>and virtue signalling I'm not disagreeing as I don't know what exact things you're talking about, but I find "virtue signalling" and "communication" to be very similar terms these days. From statement to statement I'm not sure what anyone means by that phrase anymore.
- ubermonkey 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - duxup 2y ago
    I like to not assume the worst, more so on HN, but I do run into a lot of situations elsewhere on the internet where "virtue signaling" just means "someone said something I don't like". But generally I do like to wait to understand specifically what someone means before assuming.
  - Dansvidania 2y ago
    so how should it be called, in good faith?
    - duxup 2y ago
      That's almost what I'm asking, knowing what they mean would help that some. It's almost peak irony when I saw people repeatedly tweeting about someone else's "virtue signaling". I honestly don't know what the difference is between whatever they thought the first person was doing vs. their action.
    - ubermonkey 2y ago
      They should be clearer about what they mean.
    - littlestymaar 2y ago
      I personally have no idea, because I don't even know what's the good faith meaning of this phrase.
    - 2y ago
bakugo 2y ago
[flagged]
- dralley 2y ago
  ...As opposed to kernel developers? Or even Linus himself 5 years ago?
- ziddoap 2y ago
  >Starting to think it's not just a coincidence. Is your theory that rust makes people dramatic? Or that dramatic people like rust? What other options are there, if not coincidence?
  - Pannoniae 2y ago
    I think the second one is more likely. People choose languages and ecosystems which fit their way of thinking so naturally, the ecosystem shifts to that direction. This is a self-reinforcing loop :) (one can naturally see this in many languages when the language advocates say "you are just holding it wrong...")
  - bakugo 2y ago
    > Is your theory that rust makes people dramatic? Or that dramatic people like rust? Both, really. As a language that was designed from the ground up to be a replacement for C and C++ (thus implying that it's superior to these established languages), it positions itself as inherently "dramatic" and anti-establishment. This obviously attracts these political activist types who love to insist that their way of thinking is the way forward, that everyone else was simply doing it wrong before they came along, and that anyone who questions their beliefs is an obvious enemy of progress who should be silenced at all costs. It's a cult, basically.
  - zoogeny 2y ago
    I would argue the second. I think it is a human trait to like to win arguments. In some card games, there is a thing called a trump card [1]. The trump card has this special ability to beat all other cards. Rust has a kind of trump card: memory safety. If you get in an argument about code it is often possible to maneuver the argument in the direction of memory safety at which point the Rust advocate gets to default win the discussion. I think this "trump card" aspect attracts a particular kind of person to advocate for Rust simply because they like to feel technically superior to others. Whenever they are in an argument, no matter what the context, they simply have to play the game: how can I make this technical argument about memory safety so that I can win by default. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_(card_games) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_(card_games)
zamalek 2y ago
> Martin has worked hard on Asahi, but comes of as looking for drama and virtue signalling oftentimes. Aren't these diametrically opposed? Virtue signaling is loudly claiming to have some virtue in the absence of that virtue. Hector has receipts, in the form of commits, as proof. Virtue signaling would be me appearing on the mailing list and spouting my beliefs.
- moralestapia 2y ago
  There's more than one flavor of virtue.

Cumpiler69 2y ago

>but comes of as looking for drama and virtue signalling oftentimes It's easier to name the major Linux FOSS projects that DON'T have drama and virtue signaling than the ones with. If you read the Github comments on System-D, GNOME, etc, it's like watching children bickering on Sega VS Nintendo. Turns out FOSS devs are humas just like everybody else and suffer from the same flaws.

randmeerkat 2y ago
> Turns out FOSS devs are humas just like everybody else and suffer from the same flaws. It is rather anticlimactic. I had always imagined FOSS to be this free exchange of ideas, thoughtful consideration, and intentional action. Seeing what it has become though… Maybe closed source is better.
- duxup 2y ago
  I hate to mention this but closed source appears to involve humans too. I was disappointed when I discovered this as well.
  - throawayonthe 2y ago
    [dead]
  - renewedrebecca 2y ago
    "People are a problem" - Douglas Adams
- Dansvidania 2y ago
  FOSS devs put a lot of time in what they do and they are understandably attached to whether what they do is good/successful, at least in the same proportion the general population is (but arguably more due to how much dedication goes into FOSS, kind of by construction)
- aleph_minus_one 2y ago
  > Maybe closed source is better. At least in some cases this is plausible. The money people get for working on closed source software irons out some issues, for example: Some people who voluntarily work on open source code do it for self-actualization, which indicates that they have a strong desire to push their wishes through. This implies that a lot of drama gets involved if these people don't get their way.
- flohofwoe 2y ago
  > Seeing what it has become though... Was it ever different? Not as far as I can remember at least. I think one of the main strengths of open source development is that it works despite the drama. With open source projects, everybody is free to start their own fork over disagreements, and if the fork actually turns out to be objectively better it will replace the original project. > Maybe closed source is better. It's the same and worse over there, the drama just isn't public.
  - randmeerkat 2y ago
    > It's the same and worse over there, the drama just isn't public. At least you’re getting paid. What’s the point of spending one’s free time arguing with strangers on the internet over some code that will be refactored anyway ten years from now..? Life is short, have fun, enjoy it. If you’re spending time or money on something that sucks, walk away.
  - n144q 2y ago
    This is much less likely in a company. Any sane company decides on a clear direction which way to go. Either do X and put resources in it, or not and instead focus on something else. They may change directions, but never "maybe X" at a specific point in time. Someone at the company makes a decision on this. Of course, with notable exceptions. See Apple Car, Android tablets etc.
- arp242 2y ago
  > Seeing what it has become though… Maybe closed source is better. You thought it was better in the past? Read up on the great ncurses maintainer drama. Or the NetBSD/OpenBSD split. Or FreeBSD/DragonflyBSD split. Or the Emacs forks, GNU libc forks, GCC fork, etc. etc. etc. This kind of drama has always existed. Difficult people have always existed. And even good people have always been struggling with their emotions. And in all my closed-source $dayjobs I've had to deal with all of that too. Sometimes significantly worse than I'm seeing here.
- ThrowawayR2 2y ago
  > "Maybe closed source is better." I assure you it isn't; it really, really isn't. You don't see the drama because 1) it's behind closed doors and 2) because the people involved know their job is at risk if they cross the line.
- toast0 2y ago
  > Maybe closed source is better. I've had similar pissing matches in closed source development, instigated by me and not... Often, these things get resolved or left simmering without any public visibility, so that's nice as a user. And there's usually a somewhat clear heirarchy of authority, where the boss can say I don't care who's right, do X; which resolves issues in ways that sometimes a technically minded open source project can't; that can often help with bikeshedding between usable options. But sometimes you just keep working somewhere because deep in your heart of hearts you want to do it your way, and once that other person quits or maybe even goes on vacation, you can. And sometimes people endeavor to actively push that person out, which I guess I've seen on FOSS drama too, but office politics have a way of lurking under the surface more, IMHO.
bmicraft 2y ago
It's called systemd, all lowercase, no punctuation :)
wolvesechoes 2y ago
"Turns out FOSS devs are humas just like everybody else and suffer from the same flaws." Hell no. FOSS communities, as other spaces created by permanently online individuals, definitely have higher-than-average number of mentally unhinged snowflakes.
- Cumpiler69 2y ago
  [dead]

duxup 2y ago

>and virtue signalling I'm not disagreeing as I don't know what exact things you're talking about, but I find "virtue signalling" and "communication" to be very similar terms these days. From statement to statement I'm not sure what anyone means by that phrase anymore.

ubermonkey 2y ago
[flagged]
- duxup 2y ago
  I like to not assume the worst, more so on HN, but I do run into a lot of situations elsewhere on the internet where "virtue signaling" just means "someone said something I don't like". But generally I do like to wait to understand specifically what someone means before assuming.
- Dansvidania 2y ago
  so how should it be called, in good faith?
  - duxup 2y ago
    That's almost what I'm asking, knowing what they mean would help that some. It's almost peak irony when I saw people repeatedly tweeting about someone else's "virtue signaling". I honestly don't know what the difference is between whatever they thought the first person was doing vs. their action.
  - ubermonkey 2y ago
    They should be clearer about what they mean.
  - littlestymaar 2y ago
    I personally have no idea, because I don't even know what's the good faith meaning of this phrase.
  - 2y ago

bakugo 2y ago

[flagged]

dralley 2y ago
...As opposed to kernel developers? Or even Linus himself 5 years ago?
ziddoap 2y ago
>Starting to think it's not just a coincidence. Is your theory that rust makes people dramatic? Or that dramatic people like rust? What other options are there, if not coincidence?
- Pannoniae 2y ago
  I think the second one is more likely. People choose languages and ecosystems which fit their way of thinking so naturally, the ecosystem shifts to that direction. This is a self-reinforcing loop :) (one can naturally see this in many languages when the language advocates say "you are just holding it wrong...")
- bakugo 2y ago
  > Is your theory that rust makes people dramatic? Or that dramatic people like rust? Both, really. As a language that was designed from the ground up to be a replacement for C and C++ (thus implying that it's superior to these established languages), it positions itself as inherently "dramatic" and anti-establishment. This obviously attracts these political activist types who love to insist that their way of thinking is the way forward, that everyone else was simply doing it wrong before they came along, and that anyone who questions their beliefs is an obvious enemy of progress who should be silenced at all costs. It's a cult, basically.
- zoogeny 2y ago
  I would argue the second. I think it is a human trait to like to win arguments. In some card games, there is a thing called a trump card [1]. The trump card has this special ability to beat all other cards. Rust has a kind of trump card: memory safety. If you get in an argument about code it is often possible to maneuver the argument in the direction of memory safety at which point the Rust advocate gets to default win the discussion. I think this "trump card" aspect attracts a particular kind of person to advocate for Rust simply because they like to feel technically superior to others. Whenever they are in an argument, no matter what the context, they simply have to play the game: how can I make this technical argument about memory safety so that I can win by default. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_(card_games) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_(card_games)

zamalek 2y ago

> Martin has worked hard on Asahi, but comes of as looking for drama and virtue signalling oftentimes. Aren't these diametrically opposed? Virtue signaling is loudly claiming to have some virtue in the absence of that virtue. Hector has receipts, in the form of commits, as proof. Virtue signaling would be me appearing on the mailing list and spouting my beliefs.

moralestapia 2y ago
There's more than one flavor of virtue.