6 ms·

The main developer is toxic af, and the community behavior reflects that.

gspr 1y ago
I thoroughly disagree. On the surface, his behavior may seem very similar to the behavior exhibited by toxic people, but once you understand his reasoning, I find it makea perfect sense. To summarize and paraphrase: the project is his personal garden. It's by him, for him. But he has also decided to open that garden to any random stranger on the internet, free of charge. In a lot of similar projects, that means an invitation is extended to plant stuff in the garden or to suggest that certain plants are moved. He wants to make it clear that that's not the case in his garden. If you wanna plant, you're free to freely and instantly duplicate his garden and get cracking. But he will not be planting your plants in his. Since people struggle to accept this, he's taken on a harsher-than-normal tone. That's understandable to me.
- k8sToGo 1y ago
  No. There is 0 reason to be toxic or an asshat in general. It should not be accepted. He might have reasons to be protective, but one can do that in a respectful manner. But going around, making something up, banning people for asking or criticizing is not the way to go. Once you make something public it's not a private garden anymore.
  - gspr 1y ago
    > No. There is 0 reason to be toxic or an asshat in general. It should not be accepted. So, you wanna shame or force him into accepting contributions? That's ridiculous! > Once you make something public it's not a private garden anymore. Wait, are you saying if I have an actual garden that I myself own and maintain, and I let random people from the street come see it between noon and five every Sunday, it's no longer my private garsden? Then you and I are on different planets in this debate.
    - k8sToGo 1y ago
      You forgot to quote the part where I said he can refuse in a normal and respectable way. If you make a garden and then declare it a public garden then yes. If you want people to not step on your flowers you can tell them in a normal way. No need to shout around, belittle them, and ban them from your garden for a year.... He could have just kept his Project private if he doesn't want people to interact. Simple as that.
      - gspr 1y ago
        > If you make a garden and then declare it a public garden then yes. He didn't. He made a garden, declared it private, and set specific terms under which you and I and others can come enjoy it. Take it or leave it. > No need to shout around, belittle them, and ban them from your garden for a year.... Then follow his rules, or don't go to his garden! He's offering you a free favor. Take it or leave it. > He could have just kept his Project private if he doesn't want people to interact. Simple as that. Of course he could have. However, I'm adamant that those of us who find Valetudo useful – i.e. find his garden beautiful – would be worse off for it. Why would you want the overall usefulness given to the world to decrease? What's the benefit? Not feeling annoyed that he won't let you help?
    - Geezus_42 1y ago
      They didn't say either of those things. What they said is that you can say no and not accept contributions without being a toxic asshat.
      - portaouflop 1y ago
        You can do it the first couple thousand times. After that it just becomes harder and harder to be sociable. Would you still be so nice after doing it the ten thousandth time?
- fspoettel 1y ago
  If this was the case, why have a public telegram group then? Why ridicule members and air drama? Sounds more like a fetish basement than a garden to me.
  - gspr 1y ago
    > If this was the case, why have a public telegram group then? I recently set up my first Valetudo robot, and therefore thoroughly read the documentation multiple times. In it, he comes across as genuinely wanting to help people succeed running Valetudo. I assume that's the reason for the group chat. At the same time, he also very very much does not want to give people the illusion that they can demand anything from him. The fear that people will is not unfounded. Think of what happens in any moderately popular FOSS project. He's just opting out of all that, in no uncertain terms. > Sounds more like a fetish basement than a garden to me. Fine. So he's made a fetish basement, and he's letting others use it for free. He wants to make sure that nobody demands, or even suggests, he change his basement to accommodate their fetishes. Happy?
    - IshKebab 1y ago
      There's a way to do all that without being an arsehole. Also putting an open source project out there doesn't absolve you of all social obligations simply because it's free. You can't say "well you are free to not use it, then it doesn't affect you at all" because that isn't true. By making and publicising this project he is actively discouraging other similar projects from happening - ones that might have less toxic leaders. I should write a blog post about that because it seems to be an extremely common misconception.
      - gspr 1y ago
        > Also putting an open source project out there doesn't absolve you of all social obligations simply because it's free. If I understand the guy correctly, he doesn't think that sharing software that he wrote comes with any obligations once he's sufficiently informed the recipients about damage it may cause. I agree with him.
- antman 1y ago
  That is an explanation not a justification. Toxic is toxic.
- imiric 1y ago
  See, this is what I don't understand about this type of developer. When you publish an OSS project, it is an implicit invitation for collaboration, and for being part of a community around shared interests where everyone benefits. That is the entire point of F/LOSS. Yet I've heard many people, on here, in fact, arguing against that idea. That publishing free software but not accepting feedback, contributions, or providing support, still counts as OSS. And, technically, that may be the case if you consider OSS to only be about the license itself. If you take license terms like "THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED “AS IS”, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND" as the only literal definition of what OSS is. When, in fact, it is, and can be, so much more than that. People who think like this are doing themselves and their software a disservice. Software is better when it is worked on as a community effort, much like a garden. An individual might have good ideas, and be able to execute them well, but they're not omniscient nor omnipotent. If Linus Torvalds had published Linux as his "personal garden", it would have never been even remotely as good and popular as it is today. It would have probably been another niche project in the footnotes of history.
  - gspr 1y ago
    > See, this is what I don't understand about this type of developer. That's ok. It's ok to be different. I'm probably more like you for my own projects, but that doesn't invalidate this guy's stance. > When you publish an OSS project, it is an implicit invitation for collaboration, and for being part of a community around shared interests where everyone benefits. It is not. > That is the entire point of F/LOSS. If it were, don't you think that part would be written into at least one popular FLOSS license? > People who think like this are doing themselves and their software a disservice. Software is better when it is worked on as a community effort, much like a garden. An individual might have good ideas, and be able to execute them well, but they're not omniscient nor omnipotent. Who are you to decide for another person? Can I decide such things about your actual garden? > If Linus Torvalds had published Linux as his "personal garden", it would have never been even remotely as good and popular as it is today. It would have probably been another niche project in the footnotes of history. I'm glad he didn't. But if he had, do you really think that shaming or pressuring him into doing it differently would have in any way made him feel like continuing? Linux would have died.
  - 1y ago
- ptero 1y ago
  The toxicity is not about accepting contributions. I have zero issues with this, the project is, as you said, his personal garden. But the behavior in chats is absolutely toxic. If you put out a sign "come listen to my music" and then throw out every second person, everyone wearing blue and every blonde with no warning, that is toxic. It is your play, but you are not treating people coming in with respect. My 2c.
- estimator7292 1y ago
  You're just making excuses and ignoring the problem. The problem is being verbally abusive towards people with no ill intent of any kind is unacceptable in ALL circumstances. No exceptions. You can refuse requests and ban whoever from your chatroom, that is his right. You don't get the right to abuse and mock and harass people. Ever. Assuming that you do makes you a toxic asshole. It's all very cut and dry. There's not really a gray area here. You either treat people with dignity or you're an asshole. Insisting that this kind of behavior is ever acceptable or excusable just means that you're also an asshole and looking for ways to rationalize and justify your own behavior.
  - portaouflop 1y ago
    > You either treat people with dignity or you're an asshole. I don’t think you need to treat people with dignity that don’t treat you with dignity. There is - as always - a bunch of grey area. You don’t need to be tolerant towards people that don’t practice tolerance themselves. Doing so would untermine the whole basis that allows you to be tolerant. I don’t know anything about this particular case though
- cactusplant7374 1y ago
  I find this so interesting and it seems like this happened because the project became popular?
RobotToaster 1y ago
[flagged]
- izacus 1y ago
  There was no need to bring GrapheneOS into this discussion, refrain from personal attacks please.
  - cassianoleal 1y ago
    How is bringing GrapheneOS in personal? Legit question, from a clueless person. Please be gentle! :)
    - csnweb 1y ago
      Because the gp comment is not about grapheneos, but its creator and could be taken as insulting (considering none of them is likely to be actually schizophrene).
      - cassianoleal 1y ago
        Oh ok I wasn't aware. I don't follow the Android scene and didn't know GrapheneOS was mostly a one-man show.
    - izacus 1y ago
      Calling a person schizophrenic publicly is an insult, especially in an unrelated debate.
      - cassianoleal 1y ago
        There's a few things to unpack here from my point-of-view. First, I didn't see him calling any person schizophrenic. I don't follow the Android scene so to me GrapheneOS seems like an organisation rather than a person. Second, he said borderline schizo. Third, why is it an insult?

gspr 1y ago

I thoroughly disagree. On the surface, his behavior may seem very similar to the behavior exhibited by toxic people, but once you understand his reasoning, I find it makea perfect sense. To summarize and paraphrase: the project is his personal garden. It's by him, for him. But he has also decided to open that garden to any random stranger on the internet, free of charge. In a lot of similar projects, that means an invitation is extended to plant stuff in the garden or to suggest that certain plants are moved. He wants to make it clear that that's not the case in his garden. If you wanna plant, you're free to freely and instantly duplicate his garden and get cracking. But he will not be planting your plants in his. Since people struggle to accept this, he's taken on a harsher-than-normal tone. That's understandable to me.

k8sToGo 1y ago
No. There is 0 reason to be toxic or an asshat in general. It should not be accepted. He might have reasons to be protective, but one can do that in a respectful manner. But going around, making something up, banning people for asking or criticizing is not the way to go. Once you make something public it's not a private garden anymore.
- gspr 1y ago
  > No. There is 0 reason to be toxic or an asshat in general. It should not be accepted. So, you wanna shame or force him into accepting contributions? That's ridiculous! > Once you make something public it's not a private garden anymore. Wait, are you saying if I have an actual garden that I myself own and maintain, and I let random people from the street come see it between noon and five every Sunday, it's no longer my private garsden? Then you and I are on different planets in this debate.
  - k8sToGo 1y ago
    You forgot to quote the part where I said he can refuse in a normal and respectable way. If you make a garden and then declare it a public garden then yes. If you want people to not step on your flowers you can tell them in a normal way. No need to shout around, belittle them, and ban them from your garden for a year.... He could have just kept his Project private if he doesn't want people to interact. Simple as that.
    - gspr 1y ago
      > If you make a garden and then declare it a public garden then yes. He didn't. He made a garden, declared it private, and set specific terms under which you and I and others can come enjoy it. Take it or leave it. > No need to shout around, belittle them, and ban them from your garden for a year.... Then follow his rules, or don't go to his garden! He's offering you a free favor. Take it or leave it. > He could have just kept his Project private if he doesn't want people to interact. Simple as that. Of course he could have. However, I'm adamant that those of us who find Valetudo useful – i.e. find his garden beautiful – would be worse off for it. Why would you want the overall usefulness given to the world to decrease? What's the benefit? Not feeling annoyed that he won't let you help?
  - Geezus_42 1y ago
    They didn't say either of those things. What they said is that you can say no and not accept contributions without being a toxic asshat.
    - portaouflop 1y ago
      You can do it the first couple thousand times. After that it just becomes harder and harder to be sociable. Would you still be so nice after doing it the ten thousandth time?
fspoettel 1y ago
If this was the case, why have a public telegram group then? Why ridicule members and air drama? Sounds more like a fetish basement than a garden to me.
- gspr 1y ago
  > If this was the case, why have a public telegram group then? I recently set up my first Valetudo robot, and therefore thoroughly read the documentation multiple times. In it, he comes across as genuinely wanting to help people succeed running Valetudo. I assume that's the reason for the group chat. At the same time, he also very very much does not want to give people the illusion that they can demand anything from him. The fear that people will is not unfounded. Think of what happens in any moderately popular FOSS project. He's just opting out of all that, in no uncertain terms. > Sounds more like a fetish basement than a garden to me. Fine. So he's made a fetish basement, and he's letting others use it for free. He wants to make sure that nobody demands, or even suggests, he change his basement to accommodate their fetishes. Happy?
  - IshKebab 1y ago
    There's a way to do all that without being an arsehole. Also putting an open source project out there doesn't absolve you of all social obligations simply because it's free. You can't say "well you are free to not use it, then it doesn't affect you at all" because that isn't true. By making and publicising this project he is actively discouraging other similar projects from happening - ones that might have less toxic leaders. I should write a blog post about that because it seems to be an extremely common misconception.
    - gspr 1y ago
      > Also putting an open source project out there doesn't absolve you of all social obligations simply because it's free. If I understand the guy correctly, he doesn't think that sharing software that he wrote comes with any obligations once he's sufficiently informed the recipients about damage it may cause. I agree with him.
antman 1y ago
That is an explanation not a justification. Toxic is toxic.
imiric 1y ago
See, this is what I don't understand about this type of developer. When you publish an OSS project, it is an implicit invitation for collaboration, and for being part of a community around shared interests where everyone benefits. That is the entire point of F/LOSS. Yet I've heard many people, on here, in fact, arguing against that idea. That publishing free software but not accepting feedback, contributions, or providing support, still counts as OSS. And, technically, that may be the case if you consider OSS to only be about the license itself. If you take license terms like "THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED “AS IS”, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND" as the only literal definition of what OSS is. When, in fact, it is, and can be, so much more than that. People who think like this are doing themselves and their software a disservice. Software is better when it is worked on as a community effort, much like a garden. An individual might have good ideas, and be able to execute them well, but they're not omniscient nor omnipotent. If Linus Torvalds had published Linux as his "personal garden", it would have never been even remotely as good and popular as it is today. It would have probably been another niche project in the footnotes of history.
- gspr 1y ago
  > See, this is what I don't understand about this type of developer. That's ok. It's ok to be different. I'm probably more like you for my own projects, but that doesn't invalidate this guy's stance. > When you publish an OSS project, it is an implicit invitation for collaboration, and for being part of a community around shared interests where everyone benefits. It is not. > That is the entire point of F/LOSS. If it were, don't you think that part would be written into at least one popular FLOSS license? > People who think like this are doing themselves and their software a disservice. Software is better when it is worked on as a community effort, much like a garden. An individual might have good ideas, and be able to execute them well, but they're not omniscient nor omnipotent. Who are you to decide for another person? Can I decide such things about your actual garden? > If Linus Torvalds had published Linux as his "personal garden", it would have never been even remotely as good and popular as it is today. It would have probably been another niche project in the footnotes of history. I'm glad he didn't. But if he had, do you really think that shaming or pressuring him into doing it differently would have in any way made him feel like continuing? Linux would have died.
- 1y ago
ptero 1y ago
The toxicity is not about accepting contributions. I have zero issues with this, the project is, as you said, his personal garden. But the behavior in chats is absolutely toxic. If you put out a sign "come listen to my music" and then throw out every second person, everyone wearing blue and every blonde with no warning, that is toxic. It is your play, but you are not treating people coming in with respect. My 2c.
estimator7292 1y ago
You're just making excuses and ignoring the problem. The problem is being verbally abusive towards people with no ill intent of any kind is unacceptable in ALL circumstances. No exceptions. You can refuse requests and ban whoever from your chatroom, that is his right. You don't get the right to abuse and mock and harass people. Ever. Assuming that you do makes you a toxic asshole. It's all very cut and dry. There's not really a gray area here. You either treat people with dignity or you're an asshole. Insisting that this kind of behavior is ever acceptable or excusable just means that you're also an asshole and looking for ways to rationalize and justify your own behavior.
- portaouflop 1y ago
  > You either treat people with dignity or you're an asshole. I don’t think you need to treat people with dignity that don’t treat you with dignity. There is - as always - a bunch of grey area. You don’t need to be tolerant towards people that don’t practice tolerance themselves. Doing so would untermine the whole basis that allows you to be tolerant. I don’t know anything about this particular case though
cactusplant7374 1y ago
I find this so interesting and it seems like this happened because the project became popular?

RobotToaster 1y ago

[flagged]

izacus 1y ago
There was no need to bring GrapheneOS into this discussion, refrain from personal attacks please.
- cassianoleal 1y ago
  How is bringing GrapheneOS in personal? Legit question, from a clueless person. Please be gentle! :)
  - csnweb 1y ago
    Because the gp comment is not about grapheneos, but its creator and could be taken as insulting (considering none of them is likely to be actually schizophrene).
    - cassianoleal 1y ago
      Oh ok I wasn't aware. I don't follow the Android scene and didn't know GrapheneOS was mostly a one-man show.
  - izacus 1y ago
    Calling a person schizophrenic publicly is an insult, especially in an unrelated debate.
    - cassianoleal 1y ago
      There's a few things to unpack here from my point-of-view. First, I didn't see him calling any person schizophrenic. I don't follow the Android scene so to me GrapheneOS seems like an organisation rather than a person. Second, he said borderline schizo. Third, why is it an insult?