9 ms·

> Does it make you less frustrated No. There is no valid justification, and the suggestion otherwise suggests a lack of understanding of what exactly these rud

> Does it make you less frustrated No. There is no valid justification, and the suggestion otherwise suggests a lack of understanding of what exactly these rude individuals are demanding. The very least people can do when receiving such quite extensive voluntary favors and dedication from others is to be polite and show proper gratitude and appreciation. Otherwise, they are not worth the personal and uncompensated sacrifice of time (a quite non-renewable reosurce) and personal health required for the support. They are not even worth the stress or brain cycles required for communication. (Not saying there aren't plenty of people showing appreciation - otherwise we would have given up on FOSS entirely a long time ago - just talking about those that don't)

1dom 1y ago
> No. There is no valid justification, and the suggestion otherwise suggests a lack of understanding of what exactly these rude individuals are demanding. Like I said, the fact that people are human, and that minios did a thing repeatedly, is why the expectation is there. Saying it's not justified is like saying the sky isn't justified being blue, getting upset and frustrated about it is even more silly. There's no need for people to be rude, I agree, but I don't really see any people being disproportionately rude in their comments, especially in the context of a provider who pulled part of their provisions without fair warning.
- arghwhat 1y ago
  > Like I said, the fact that people are human Repeating something unreasonable does not make it reasonable. If I donate to charity for 10 years in a row, someone might come to expect my donation, sure. If I chose to lower or stop my donation, the only response others are entitled to is gratitude for the remaining and past donations. There is no requirement for warning. Heck, in this particular case the whole "charity donation" is still there, just packaged differently. Discontent makes no sense. People's rude behavior isn't limited to HN comments, they take it everywhere: Reddit, GitHub issues, mailing lists, channels. Nor was my comment specific to this minio news, but rather about people's attitude towards free things in general.
  - 1dom 1y ago
    > If I chose to lower or stop my donation, the only response others are entitled to is gratitude for the remaining and past donations. I'm sorry, I don't think we're going to agree. I think it's weird that you're trying to proscribe people's allowed responses, and getting upset that it's not just gratitude. If you see the world that way, you're never going to see my point which is that humans recognise patterns, and that creates expectations. Price doesn't matter. You can repeat all you want that those expectations should just be gratitude, but they're clearly not, that's why we're having this discussion. I can't make humans not be pattern recognition machines, but you can update your mental model to accept that they are. If you base your expectations in what we both see in reality, then you'll accept that they're not going to just be gratuitous. That's not because they're horrible people, it's because they're humans that recognise patterns and have a biological cost to patterns being disrupted.
    - arghwhat 1y ago
      > I think it's weird that you're trying to proscribe people's allowed responses There's nothing weird about classifying behavior as rude, nor about refusing to waste my limited time on this planet on those not deserving of it. It's an entirely natural part of every-day life to make such distinction, necessary even to avoid things negatively impacting mental health, and I think it's weird to suggest otherwise. > I can't make humans not be pattern recognition machines, but you can update your mental model to accept that they are. This translates to "I will not change my stance so you need to change yours". I have no reason to or incentive to change my stance to accept unpleasant, unreasonable or abusive behavior in response to creating free things, so no. I don't care why someone is being unpleasant, unreasonable or abusive, nor do I need to - I'm not their therapist, and it's perfectly valid for me to just walk away. > I'm sorry, I don't think we're going to agree. That's fine. Granted, I'd prefer if users stopped such unreasonable behavior as it's more healthy to not have toxic interactions than having to mentally ignore them (or worse, respond, report or ban them), but can't win every time. It would've been more productive for the users too.
      - 1dom 11mo ago
kbelder 1y ago
They are also, by complaining, incentivizing other people to not even offer free services in the future. Why set yourself up for accusations that you're 'breaking your social contract' or whatnot?
- Dylan16807 1y ago
  Discouraging unreliable free things is good in a lot of cases.
  - arghwhat 1y ago
    You just get fewer free things then. Not sure how thats good.
    - Dylan16807 1y ago
      Free things tend to push out competition. So the worst case scenario is pushing out competition and then disappearing.
      - arghwhat 1y ago
        This happens more often with paid things, as these have a direct financial incentive to elliminate competition and grow adoption. Free stuff does not.
        Dylan16807 1y ago
        When it's a free option from a paid company, you get the worst of both worlds for risk of disappearing. And that's the situation here. The open source baseline is still there, which is great, but if someone else was making these packages they'd be less likely to silently drop it.
        arghwhat 1y ago
        > The open source baseline is still there, which is great, but if someone else was making these packages they'd be less likely to silently drop it. Packages are deprecated and orphaned all the time, including in OSS package repos. It's often silent by virtue of the package maintainer just... ignoring it, until someone takes administrative action by just whacking the package. > When it's a free option from a paid company, you get the worst of both worlds for risk of disappearing. And that's the situation here. I don't really see that as having any impact. I also don't see a packing method for an active free project being deprecated as anything having "disappeared". People just need to update their deployment, just like if the release had included a breaking change.

1dom 1y ago

> No. There is no valid justification, and the suggestion otherwise suggests a lack of understanding of what exactly these rude individuals are demanding. Like I said, the fact that people are human, and that minios did a thing repeatedly, is why the expectation is there. Saying it's not justified is like saying the sky isn't justified being blue, getting upset and frustrated about it is even more silly. There's no need for people to be rude, I agree, but I don't really see any people being disproportionately rude in their comments, especially in the context of a provider who pulled part of their provisions without fair warning.

arghwhat 1y ago
> Like I said, the fact that people are human Repeating something unreasonable does not make it reasonable. If I donate to charity for 10 years in a row, someone might come to expect my donation, sure. If I chose to lower or stop my donation, the only response others are entitled to is gratitude for the remaining and past donations. There is no requirement for warning. Heck, in this particular case the whole "charity donation" is still there, just packaged differently. Discontent makes no sense. People's rude behavior isn't limited to HN comments, they take it everywhere: Reddit, GitHub issues, mailing lists, channels. Nor was my comment specific to this minio news, but rather about people's attitude towards free things in general.
- 1dom 1y ago
  > If I chose to lower or stop my donation, the only response others are entitled to is gratitude for the remaining and past donations. I'm sorry, I don't think we're going to agree. I think it's weird that you're trying to proscribe people's allowed responses, and getting upset that it's not just gratitude. If you see the world that way, you're never going to see my point which is that humans recognise patterns, and that creates expectations. Price doesn't matter. You can repeat all you want that those expectations should just be gratitude, but they're clearly not, that's why we're having this discussion. I can't make humans not be pattern recognition machines, but you can update your mental model to accept that they are. If you base your expectations in what we both see in reality, then you'll accept that they're not going to just be gratuitous. That's not because they're horrible people, it's because they're humans that recognise patterns and have a biological cost to patterns being disrupted.
  - arghwhat 1y ago
    > I think it's weird that you're trying to proscribe people's allowed responses There's nothing weird about classifying behavior as rude, nor about refusing to waste my limited time on this planet on those not deserving of it. It's an entirely natural part of every-day life to make such distinction, necessary even to avoid things negatively impacting mental health, and I think it's weird to suggest otherwise. > I can't make humans not be pattern recognition machines, but you can update your mental model to accept that they are. This translates to "I will not change my stance so you need to change yours". I have no reason to or incentive to change my stance to accept unpleasant, unreasonable or abusive behavior in response to creating free things, so no. I don't care why someone is being unpleasant, unreasonable or abusive, nor do I need to - I'm not their therapist, and it's perfectly valid for me to just walk away. > I'm sorry, I don't think we're going to agree. That's fine. Granted, I'd prefer if users stopped such unreasonable behavior as it's more healthy to not have toxic interactions than having to mentally ignore them (or worse, respond, report or ban them), but can't win every time. It would've been more productive for the users too.
    - 1dom 11mo ago

kbelder 1y ago

They are also, by complaining, incentivizing other people to not even offer free services in the future. Why set yourself up for accusations that you're 'breaking your social contract' or whatnot?

Dylan16807 1y ago
Discouraging unreliable free things is good in a lot of cases.
- arghwhat 1y ago
  You just get fewer free things then. Not sure how thats good.
  - Dylan16807 1y ago
    Free things tend to push out competition. So the worst case scenario is pushing out competition and then disappearing.
    - arghwhat 1y ago
      This happens more often with paid things, as these have a direct financial incentive to elliminate competition and grow adoption. Free stuff does not.
      - Dylan16807 1y ago
        When it's a free option from a paid company, you get the worst of both worlds for risk of disappearing. And that's the situation here. The open source baseline is still there, which is great, but if someone else was making these packages they'd be less likely to silently drop it.
        arghwhat 1y ago
        > The open source baseline is still there, which is great, but if someone else was making these packages they'd be less likely to silently drop it. Packages are deprecated and orphaned all the time, including in OSS package repos. It's often silent by virtue of the package maintainer just... ignoring it, until someone takes administrative action by just whacking the package. > When it's a free option from a paid company, you get the worst of both worlds for risk of disappearing. And that's the situation here. I don't really see that as having any impact. I also don't see a packing method for an active free project being deprecated as anything having "disappeared". People just need to update their deployment, just like if the release had included a breaking change.