10 ms·

> Why can't I open up an issue? > Because I'm just a single person and I don't want to offer up my spare time doing support or dealing with feature requests th

> Why can't I open up an issue? > Because I'm just a single person and I don't want to offer up my spare time doing support or dealing with feature requests that I don't care about myself [...] Sort of defeats the point of open source, no? Sublime Text's author could argue a similar case about keeping it closed source himself.

theboywho 13y ago
I think the author makes a point here, he is making it Open Source so that anyone who wants to tinker with it can. Fixing people "Issues" is not part of the Open Source culture and more of the closed source model, since the whole point of Open Source is so that you can "fix" things yourself without waiting for the vendor. That's why there's "Use at your own risk" everywhere
foxhill 13y ago
but its open source nature means we can add features/fix bugs ourselves. if they gain enough traction, i'm sure they'll end up in the mainline branch.
srik 13y ago
Keeping issues open does have some serendipitous benefits. Someone who has the skillset/knowledge and has the same issue, might offer to fix it.
golergka 13y ago
I think that the point of open source is that I'm able to fork it anytime, and to accept all kind of issues with blackjack and hookers on my fork.
mjs7231 13y ago
That line right there killed any chance of me downloading or trying this. His first three paragraphs cover how he dislikes Sublime Text for some decently noble reasons. Then the first FAQ is about how he is no different. In fact, probably even worse. The idea that he will only work on things 'only he cares about' says this: Unless I'm you, I wont care about your project either.
- bronson 13y ago
  Except that there's one major difference that you're ignoring. Source code is available. So, if you feel like it, go nuts. And if not, don't. The project is at an early stage so what is there to complain about?
  - mjs7231 13y ago
    I am only trying to help because I like the idea of this project. However, it's the "Patches Welcome" attitude of devs that kills projects. Honestly, after reading this thread and the attitude portrayed, I suspect this project will die with only a handful of users and no maintenance before everyone resorts back to Sublime Text. -- Maybe he doesn't want an active community of users using his software, which is fine. But then why post it on HN?
    - kelnos 13y ago
      Maybe he doesn't want an active community of users using his software, which is fine. But then why post it on HN? He didn't. Author != submitter.
levosmetalo 13y ago
The rest of the same paragraph that you skipped is: > If you want a feature implemented or a bug fixed, fork it and implement it yourself and submit a pull request when you're happy with the implementation. And this is exactly the point of open source. You have the source, you can change it, or pay someone to change it, you can contribute back. Not being able to request features for free doesn't make it against the "spirit of open source".
- stinos 13y ago
  And this is exactly the point of open source. You have the source, you can change it, or pay someone to change it, you can contribute back while I agree this is at least one of the points of open source, it's also one of the reasons it's pretty hard to get someone who is either not a developper or doesn't have time to play with the source to turn from the commercial to the open source side. In my experience users out there want something that Just Works, or will be fixed within a reasonable time. If they read something like this, they go all like "wtf is this mentality, I'll just buy something instead"
  - Shorel 13y ago
    And that's OK. Paying money for software (open or not) is not something immoral, in fact, to me it is the way it should be for most cases. Also, Open Source should be important to developers. Aren't you a developer? Then be prepared to pay if you want something that's not implemented already. Not being able to program is the illiteracy of this century.
    - koralatov 13y ago
      Not being able to program is the illiteracy of this century. I'm getting pretty tired of hearing this. It isn't the case at all. Not knowing how to use a computer is `the illiteracy of this century', but claiming not knowing how to program is illiteracy is like claiming not knowing how to play piano makes you tone-deaf.
      - 13y ago
kristiandupont 13y ago
On various open source projects I have been running, people have requested that I implement this or that feature of zero interest to me. Most are presented as suggestions but some are rude and demanding. I have never understood this mindset. The fact that I am sharing code that I wrote means that I am now obligated to offer support and implement stuff that I don't care about? The way I see it, the "point" of open source is just that: the source code is open -- for you to see, use and modify if you like. The author is free to do what they want with their time.
- hackula1 13y ago
  This is what professional support contracts are for. If someone really wants something implemented that is of no use to anyone else, then they should pay for it.
  - tedunangst 13y ago
    Not everybody wants to make a career out of their side project. Just because you offer me money, doesn't mean I should be obligated to take it. (By all means, offer the money to somebody else, just leave me out of it.)
    - subsystem 13y ago
      I'm ok with that. What I'm not ok with is when people use open source as an excuse for mediocrity. Many times you do hear "It's open source, I'm doing this for free, just fork it!" when it probably should be "It's a hobby project, it probably won't go anywhere and the code wasn't really made to be used by someone else, but if you can find something useful you're free to use it". There are a lot of active open source projects out there that spend a lot of time maintaining their project and I think it's kind of "meh" to undermine the positive things they've been working for.
    - hackula1 13y ago
      I have absolutely 0 problem with this, as long as a disclaimer is listed like the OP did. I honestly think this is the right way to do it. Imagine though if apache had some major security flaw uncovered tomorrow and the maintainers said, "This is just an open source project. You are free to look into the issue and fix it yourself if you want. We will merge the pull request when we get around to it.". Managing expectations is-- as usual-- everything.
jmilloy 13y ago
What is the point of open source, in your opinion? To me, it has nothing to do with bug reports or feature requests.
amorphid 13y ago
Fork it! His whole point is that a free and open code base gives you options you didn't have before, isn't it?
ramblerman 13y ago
Open source doesn't mean will work for free on stuff you desire, that's just a common side benefit. It just means the source code is 'open' for you or the community to extend as you please. Your comparison to Sublime is apples and oranges.
transfire 13y ago
I think the makes some sense... at first. I would hope that once the project is mature enough the policy would change.
kybernetyk 13y ago
> Sort of defeats the point of open source, no? No. You are free to implement the feature yourself and submit a patch to the original author - or fork the project if he doesn't want your patches. That is the point of open source.
mhurron 13y ago
> Sort of defeats the point of open source The point of open source is not that you suddenly get your own personal developer to do things for you.
gillianseed 13y ago
Eh, are you claiming that the point of open source is to take feature requests? It's open source, you can download it and add your desired features yourself, that is very much the 'point of open source' in my opinion.
compay 13y ago
"open source" != "open project"
- kzrdude 13y ago
  Exactly. I'm not sure if there are many examples, I can only think of Lua; the authors of Lua don't share their development progress, discussion or version history. They don't take patches but may implement user suggestions. Still, the releases are free and open software.
carsonreinke 13y ago
Probably to avoid the `it don't work` issues
pbreit 13y ago
While I can understand the sentiment (barely), the way it's written comes off as "F U". Better might be "I welcome all feature requests but please understand I am one person with a day job. I would be thrilled for anyone to contribute coded features and pull requests.".
- mcgwiz 13y ago
  I find it a much bigger "F U" to host an issue tracker and completely ignore it (perhaps while you continue development on other features), or worse, close new items out of hand. At least he's taken the time to clarify what can be expected of him. To me, that's a simple show of respect toward the community.
- levosmetalo 13y ago
  No, it's not a "F U". He created something, he made it available to everyone to download, build, use and extend. On top of all of that, why would he have to apologize to the world because he doesn't want to hear about feature requests from non contributors at this stage of the project.
mcgwiz 13y ago
I applaud his approach, at it demonstrates respect to other developers by explicitly communicating what others can expect of him. Although it's not required, I would hope that all devs who open source a project without any intention of heeding public issue trackers follow suit and proactively clarify that intention. (Nothing--philosophically or legally--requires anyone to maintain an issue tracker for an open source project. There was a time when open source typically amounted to a tarball on an FTP server, and maybe a -dev list.)
- rpedela 13y ago
  Yes, but those were also the days when it was super painful to contribute to OSS. The issue tracker can also be used as a roadmap / task manager which is very helpful. The problem isn't the issue tracker. The problem is the developer does not want to maintain everything for everyone. That is perfectly okay so the solution to me is just to communicate that in the project guidelines. To me, not having an issue tracker at all is equivalent to Sublime Text developers dropping off the map for 6 months.
thothamon 13y ago
Or if you don't like the dev's approach here, fork the code and turn on issues. I bet if you're more responsive, people will use your fork rather than the original dev's.
nazgulnarsil 13y ago
This horseshit entitlement attitude is everything that is wrong with the OSS community.
geofft 13y ago
There's software I'm scared of releasing as open source because I don't want people to have that opinion about it and I know I won't have the resources to properly maintain it. There is software by leading voices in the free software community with much the same rationale -- the LWN website code comes to mind. Meanwhile, Tarsnap releases their code under a non-open-source license, and everyone thinks they're great, underlining the perverse incentives here. Let's restore a culture where posting a tarball and licensing it and leaving is okay and wonderful, instead of falling short of expectations.
Volpe 13y ago
There is this crazy concept in version control and open source in general called: Forking. In github, you can fork, and then turn on issues! (I know, we live in the future right!?)

theboywho 13y ago

I think the author makes a point here, he is making it Open Source so that anyone who wants to tinker with it can. Fixing people "Issues" is not part of the Open Source culture and more of the closed source model, since the whole point of Open Source is so that you can "fix" things yourself without waiting for the vendor. That's why there's "Use at your own risk" everywhere

foxhill 13y ago

but its open source nature means we can add features/fix bugs ourselves. if they gain enough traction, i'm sure they'll end up in the mainline branch.

srik 13y ago

Keeping issues open does have some serendipitous benefits. Someone who has the skillset/knowledge and has the same issue, might offer to fix it.

golergka 13y ago

I think that the point of open source is that I'm able to fork it anytime, and to accept all kind of issues with blackjack and hookers on my fork.

mjs7231 13y ago

That line right there killed any chance of me downloading or trying this. His first three paragraphs cover how he dislikes Sublime Text for some decently noble reasons. Then the first FAQ is about how he is no different. In fact, probably even worse. The idea that he will only work on things 'only he cares about' says this: Unless I'm you, I wont care about your project either.

bronson 13y ago
Except that there's one major difference that you're ignoring. Source code is available. So, if you feel like it, go nuts. And if not, don't. The project is at an early stage so what is there to complain about?
- mjs7231 13y ago
  I am only trying to help because I like the idea of this project. However, it's the "Patches Welcome" attitude of devs that kills projects. Honestly, after reading this thread and the attitude portrayed, I suspect this project will die with only a handful of users and no maintenance before everyone resorts back to Sublime Text. -- Maybe he doesn't want an active community of users using his software, which is fine. But then why post it on HN?
  - kelnos 13y ago
    Maybe he doesn't want an active community of users using his software, which is fine. But then why post it on HN? He didn't. Author != submitter.

levosmetalo 13y ago

The rest of the same paragraph that you skipped is: > If you want a feature implemented or a bug fixed, fork it and implement it yourself and submit a pull request when you're happy with the implementation. And this is exactly the point of open source. You have the source, you can change it, or pay someone to change it, you can contribute back. Not being able to request features for free doesn't make it against the "spirit of open source".

stinos 13y ago
And this is exactly the point of open source. You have the source, you can change it, or pay someone to change it, you can contribute back while I agree this is at least one of the points of open source, it's also one of the reasons it's pretty hard to get someone who is either not a developper or doesn't have time to play with the source to turn from the commercial to the open source side. In my experience users out there want something that Just Works, or will be fixed within a reasonable time. If they read something like this, they go all like "wtf is this mentality, I'll just buy something instead"
- Shorel 13y ago
  And that's OK. Paying money for software (open or not) is not something immoral, in fact, to me it is the way it should be for most cases. Also, Open Source should be important to developers. Aren't you a developer? Then be prepared to pay if you want something that's not implemented already. Not being able to program is the illiteracy of this century.
  - koralatov 13y ago
    Not being able to program is the illiteracy of this century. I'm getting pretty tired of hearing this. It isn't the case at all. Not knowing how to use a computer is `the illiteracy of this century', but claiming not knowing how to program is illiteracy is like claiming not knowing how to play piano makes you tone-deaf.
    - 13y ago

kristiandupont 13y ago

On various open source projects I have been running, people have requested that I implement this or that feature of zero interest to me. Most are presented as suggestions but some are rude and demanding. I have never understood this mindset. The fact that I am sharing code that I wrote means that I am now obligated to offer support and implement stuff that I don't care about? The way I see it, the "point" of open source is just that: the source code is open -- for you to see, use and modify if you like. The author is free to do what they want with their time.

hackula1 13y ago
This is what professional support contracts are for. If someone really wants something implemented that is of no use to anyone else, then they should pay for it.
- tedunangst 13y ago
  Not everybody wants to make a career out of their side project. Just because you offer me money, doesn't mean I should be obligated to take it. (By all means, offer the money to somebody else, just leave me out of it.)
  - subsystem 13y ago
    I'm ok with that. What I'm not ok with is when people use open source as an excuse for mediocrity. Many times you do hear "It's open source, I'm doing this for free, just fork it!" when it probably should be "It's a hobby project, it probably won't go anywhere and the code wasn't really made to be used by someone else, but if you can find something useful you're free to use it". There are a lot of active open source projects out there that spend a lot of time maintaining their project and I think it's kind of "meh" to undermine the positive things they've been working for.
  - hackula1 13y ago
    I have absolutely 0 problem with this, as long as a disclaimer is listed like the OP did. I honestly think this is the right way to do it. Imagine though if apache had some major security flaw uncovered tomorrow and the maintainers said, "This is just an open source project. You are free to look into the issue and fix it yourself if you want. We will merge the pull request when we get around to it.". Managing expectations is-- as usual-- everything.

jmilloy 13y ago

What is the point of open source, in your opinion? To me, it has nothing to do with bug reports or feature requests.

amorphid 13y ago

Fork it! His whole point is that a free and open code base gives you options you didn't have before, isn't it?

ramblerman 13y ago

Open source doesn't mean will work for free on stuff you desire, that's just a common side benefit. It just means the source code is 'open' for you or the community to extend as you please. Your comparison to Sublime is apples and oranges.

transfire 13y ago

I think the makes some sense... at first. I would hope that once the project is mature enough the policy would change.

kybernetyk 13y ago

> Sort of defeats the point of open source, no? No. You are free to implement the feature yourself and submit a patch to the original author - or fork the project if he doesn't want your patches. That is the point of open source.

mhurron 13y ago

> Sort of defeats the point of open source The point of open source is not that you suddenly get your own personal developer to do things for you.

gillianseed 13y ago

Eh, are you claiming that the point of open source is to take feature requests? It's open source, you can download it and add your desired features yourself, that is very much the 'point of open source' in my opinion.

compay 13y ago

"open source" != "open project"

kzrdude 13y ago
Exactly. I'm not sure if there are many examples, I can only think of Lua; the authors of Lua don't share their development progress, discussion or version history. They don't take patches but may implement user suggestions. Still, the releases are free and open software.

carsonreinke 13y ago

Probably to avoid the `it don't work` issues

pbreit 13y ago

While I can understand the sentiment (barely), the way it's written comes off as "F U". Better might be "I welcome all feature requests but please understand I am one person with a day job. I would be thrilled for anyone to contribute coded features and pull requests.".

mcgwiz 13y ago
I find it a much bigger "F U" to host an issue tracker and completely ignore it (perhaps while you continue development on other features), or worse, close new items out of hand. At least he's taken the time to clarify what can be expected of him. To me, that's a simple show of respect toward the community.
levosmetalo 13y ago
No, it's not a "F U". He created something, he made it available to everyone to download, build, use and extend. On top of all of that, why would he have to apologize to the world because he doesn't want to hear about feature requests from non contributors at this stage of the project.

mcgwiz 13y ago

I applaud his approach, at it demonstrates respect to other developers by explicitly communicating what others can expect of him. Although it's not required, I would hope that all devs who open source a project without any intention of heeding public issue trackers follow suit and proactively clarify that intention. (Nothing--philosophically or legally--requires anyone to maintain an issue tracker for an open source project. There was a time when open source typically amounted to a tarball on an FTP server, and maybe a -dev list.)

rpedela 13y ago
Yes, but those were also the days when it was super painful to contribute to OSS. The issue tracker can also be used as a roadmap / task manager which is very helpful. The problem isn't the issue tracker. The problem is the developer does not want to maintain everything for everyone. That is perfectly okay so the solution to me is just to communicate that in the project guidelines. To me, not having an issue tracker at all is equivalent to Sublime Text developers dropping off the map for 6 months.

thothamon 13y ago

Or if you don't like the dev's approach here, fork the code and turn on issues. I bet if you're more responsive, people will use your fork rather than the original dev's.

nazgulnarsil 13y ago

This horseshit entitlement attitude is everything that is wrong with the OSS community.

geofft 13y ago

There's software I'm scared of releasing as open source because I don't want people to have that opinion about it and I know I won't have the resources to properly maintain it. There is software by leading voices in the free software community with much the same rationale -- the LWN website code comes to mind. Meanwhile, Tarsnap releases their code under a non-open-source license, and everyone thinks they're great, underlining the perverse incentives here. Let's restore a culture where posting a tarball and licensing it and leaving is okay and wonderful, instead of falling short of expectations.

Volpe 13y ago

There is this crazy concept in version control and open source in general called: Forking. In github, you can fork, and then turn on issues! (I know, we live in the future right!?)