4 ms·

> Open source is not awful. He specifically said 'in many ways', then elaborated on some of these ways. You're doing nothing more than fighting a strawman. >

> Open source is not awful. He specifically said 'in many ways', then elaborated on some of these ways. You're doing nothing more than fighting a strawman. > Open source is merely the idea that sharing code is good This is just an argument from being pedantic - he's obviously talking about the open source community at large (and specifically, some sub-communties), and I can't honestly believe you don't know that. > I've personally had nothing but great encounters with FOSS. Another classic false argument that comes up all the time - do you think your good experiences cancel out his bad ones, or the other bad ones discussed elsewhere in this thread? > It's best to think of FOSS not as some community that replaces your interactions More weird phrasing that seems a bit of a strawman. Who said that the open source community 'replaces' one's interactions? Can a community not have bad characteristics simply because it's not the only community you're involved in? This really makes no sense. > but rather as a sharing philosophy Again, this is an argument from nothing more than being pedantic. It's incredibly obvious that the original post isn't referring at all to the general philosophies of open source, but to the actual communities he participates in, in terms that are not remotely unusual. Even if you're adamant that open source as a term must only refer to the philosophy and none of the practical details, you've done nothing to affect the original argument, because it's still about the communities that exist around it in practice. Overall, I think your post is a bit of a mess of bad arguments and classic fallacies.

tankenmate 12y ago
And Lennart's post is bit of a mess of over generalisation. Both arguments have qualitative merit, but also large quantitative holes. There are many open source communities (and there are many altogether; good and bad) that don't have any of this sort of behaviour. It would seem that the Linux kernel / systems arena would have more than its fair share.
Mikeb85 12y ago
> He specifically said 'in many ways', then elaborated on some of these ways. But none of those ways have anything to do with open source. You need to look no further than #gamergate to see that people act like assholes on the internet. > This is just an argument from being pedantic - he's obviously talking about the open source community at large (and specifically, some sub-communties), and I can't honestly believe you don't know that. I know that, but equating a concept with people is like equating the corner block outside with the drug dealer that sells there. "Street corners are awful!" > t's incredibly obvious that the original post isn't referring at all to the general philosophies of open source, but to the actual communities he participates in, in terms that are not remotely unusual. So instead of saying those communities suck, he says open source can be awful in some ways... Communities can suck in any industry/hobby/interest/etc...
- inclemnet 12y ago
  > But none of those ways have anything to do with open source More bad arguments! He didn't say that open source is unique. Perhaps he's simply talking about the communities he's actually involved in. > equating a concept with people I don't think you do get it. Nothing about Lennart's terminology is particularly unusual - the 'open source community' in standard parlance is a fairly well defined set of people, organisations and forums that isn't particularly controversial to refer to. I think you really are just using different words as everyone else to mean the same things.
  - Mikeb85 12y ago
    > Perhaps he's simply talking about the communities he's actually involved in. Then he should have said 'The communities I'm involved in are awful'. And I'd agree. I didn't realize he made PulseAudio and Systemd (or was involved in some way). I personally don't mind either project (neither have harmed my Linux experience, Pulse is convenient for my uses), and I think both get a lot of unwarranted criticism. Not least for the fact that, with open source, you don't HAVE to be stuck with anything you don't want to be. > I don't think you do get it. Nothing about Lennart's terminology is particularly unusual - the 'open source community' in standard parlance is a fairly well defined set of people, organisations and forums that isn't particularly controversial to refer to. I think you really are just using different words as everyone else to mean the same things. See, this is the thing. I'm not part of that community. I could care less. But the reason why conversations like this aren't useful, is that you're equating a specific group of people with a concept, but criticizing the concept. Posts like this find their way outside the community. They give fodder to those who would like to see all software be closed source. They aren't helpful. Again, he should be far more explicit in what he's actually criticizing...
    - inclemnet 12y ago
      > Then he should have said 'The communities I'm involved in are awful Luckily he doesn't need to, because (as above) he's obviously talking about the open source community. > I could care less You couldn't care less. I really think none of your criticisms are a real problem, or that there's any real ambiguity. I won't keep replying, it doesn't seem useful.

tankenmate 12y ago

And Lennart's post is bit of a mess of over generalisation. Both arguments have qualitative merit, but also large quantitative holes. There are many open source communities (and there are many altogether; good and bad) that don't have any of this sort of behaviour. It would seem that the Linux kernel / systems arena would have more than its fair share.

Mikeb85 12y ago

> He specifically said 'in many ways', then elaborated on some of these ways. But none of those ways have anything to do with open source. You need to look no further than #gamergate to see that people act like assholes on the internet. > This is just an argument from being pedantic - he's obviously talking about the open source community at large (and specifically, some sub-communties), and I can't honestly believe you don't know that. I know that, but equating a concept with people is like equating the corner block outside with the drug dealer that sells there. "Street corners are awful!" > t's incredibly obvious that the original post isn't referring at all to the general philosophies of open source, but to the actual communities he participates in, in terms that are not remotely unusual. So instead of saying those communities suck, he says open source can be awful in some ways... Communities can suck in any industry/hobby/interest/etc...

inclemnet 12y ago
> But none of those ways have anything to do with open source More bad arguments! He didn't say that open source is unique. Perhaps he's simply talking about the communities he's actually involved in. > equating a concept with people I don't think you do get it. Nothing about Lennart's terminology is particularly unusual - the 'open source community' in standard parlance is a fairly well defined set of people, organisations and forums that isn't particularly controversial to refer to. I think you really are just using different words as everyone else to mean the same things.
- Mikeb85 12y ago
  > Perhaps he's simply talking about the communities he's actually involved in. Then he should have said 'The communities I'm involved in are awful'. And I'd agree. I didn't realize he made PulseAudio and Systemd (or was involved in some way). I personally don't mind either project (neither have harmed my Linux experience, Pulse is convenient for my uses), and I think both get a lot of unwarranted criticism. Not least for the fact that, with open source, you don't HAVE to be stuck with anything you don't want to be. > I don't think you do get it. Nothing about Lennart's terminology is particularly unusual - the 'open source community' in standard parlance is a fairly well defined set of people, organisations and forums that isn't particularly controversial to refer to. I think you really are just using different words as everyone else to mean the same things. See, this is the thing. I'm not part of that community. I could care less. But the reason why conversations like this aren't useful, is that you're equating a specific group of people with a concept, but criticizing the concept. Posts like this find their way outside the community. They give fodder to those who would like to see all software be closed source. They aren't helpful. Again, he should be far more explicit in what he's actually criticizing...
  - inclemnet 12y ago
    > Then he should have said 'The communities I'm involved in are awful Luckily he doesn't need to, because (as above) he's obviously talking about the open source community. > I could care less You couldn't care less. I really think none of your criticisms are a real problem, or that there's any real ambiguity. I won't keep replying, it doesn't seem useful.