undefined | Better HN

0 pointsCrysstalis3y ago0 comments

>I can point to multiple specific instances where gnome developers were rude, unhelpful, arrogant, etc

I too can point to multiple specific instances where Linux developers were rude, or where gcc developers were rude, or where SDL developers were rude, or where a lot of other developers were rude. I bet someone could dig through your comment history and find instances where you were rude and unhelpful too, probably even more if you shared any comments from when you were a young teenager. I hope you can see that it is completely ridiculous (and somewhat creepy) for someone to do that to you. Open source programmers just disagree sometimes, and sometimes they have a bad day and aren't totally professional about it, and in larger projects it is a lot more visible than on smaller ones. All you can ask of them is for an apology and then move on. It is unreasonable to expect anything else or to keep harping on this years after the fact.

Also it is completely ridiculous that this thread is getting derailed again into complaints about missing features in GNOME. Lennart isn't a GNOME contributor, I don't think he has written any significant code for GNOME at all. The fact that nonsense conflation is being used should be a "snap back to reality" moment. Just don't do it. This always seems to happen and it's always from the same suspects trying to revive the same old >=10 year old forum threads. Please give it a rest and try to do something positive instead, don't let the lwn trolls get inside your head. You are generalizing an entire group of people based on some cherry picked interactions that both of us likely lack the context to fully understand, unless you were "behind the curtain" like the parent comment actually was. If you weren't, then it is just another tone policing comment from the peanut gallery, the kind you probably would find to be bad if they were made from random users on your projects.

>At some point I suppose I'll get around to documenting the times gnome developers were publicly assholes to other open source contributors, but honestly I'd rather let it go and just ignore the whole project as much as I'm able to.

Letting it go is probably the right choice. If you want to revisit it, I have a suggestion: why don't you go through and publicly document all the times they did something right or the times they were nice to people, and then praise them for that and encourage them to do more of that. Surely you understand that it is not useful to keep beating a horse that died long ago. Just focus on the positive, if the worst thing they did is send some slightly unprofessional email 5-10 years ago (as if most open source developers in the 1990s-2000s didn't do that at some point, I think I lost count of the number of flamewars I read from that period) then it really should not be hard to find some examples of good.

0 comments

traverseda3y ago

>This always seems to happen and it's always from the same suspects trying to revive the same old >=10 year old forum threads.

I think that has something to do with redhat defenders/employees needing to nitpick every little issue that anyone has in a public forum. The inability to just say "oh well that's bad but we're working on it" and instead try to mitigate or distract from any legitimate issues. Any discussion about this issues always turns into the same sprawling discussion where I'm asked to prove a bunch of subjective things. I try to illustrate that third parties have issues with redhat engineers and submitting patches. I back that up by showing that the developers of lxde, transmission, and SDL, have all had significant issues with the gnome development team (mostly redhat), and I'm told it's creepy to point that out. But those are some of the cases that gave redhat this reputation.

You can't have a negative opinion about redhat/gnome without a bunch of people crawling out of the woodwork to nitpick and force you to justify every negative opinion to absurd amounts. Most of those people aren't just regular users, they are or were directly involved with redhad or gnome. It's impossible to have a straightforward debate, it will get derailed into a bunch of minutia.

My main complaint is that redhat encourages tighter coupling between their components that I think is reasonable, that's what I said in the root comment and I stand by it. The fact that I'm not debating a bunch of minutia with a bunch of redhat fandboys is frankly endemic to the problem.

Tell me, have you been paid to work on systemd/gnome/redhat in the past?

CrysstalisOP3y ago

>I'm told it's creepy to point that out. But those are some of the cases that gave redhat this reputation.

Yes, I think it is creepy. Don't you think it would be creepy if someone was in a completely different thread in a conversation with someone else who had nothing to do you or with your decisions, started going through your 10 year old comments looking for disagreeable things, and using them as an excuse to discredit everything that you might have been slightly involved with? This person isn't a GNOME developer and he doesn't even work for Red Hat anymore.

>It's impossible to have a straightforward debate, it will get derailed into a bunch of minutia.

Please don't try to make this into a debate. This is not a constructive way to approach anything. If you look at this conversation as something you need to "win" then that would be the core of the problem. It is perfectly fine to express a negative opinion, but what is not okay is when you start saying things along the lines of "I am going to prove all the developers of XYZ are permanent irredeemable assholes". That is just furthering the flamewar, it's not moving past it into the actual issues.

>Tell me, have you been paid to work on systemd/gnome/redhat in the past?

No. This also is a somewhat trollish question that is unnecessarily making things personal and leans on a stereotype, in the future you shouldn't lead a conversation with questions like this. In particular, people can change their mind on all those things despite being paid in the past, or could be paid and still have a bad opinion of them, or could not be paid but still have a good opinion, or any number of other things that are outside the preconceived notions. A much better and friendlier way to phrase this would be something like "What is your experience with these projects/developers/companies?" Then the other person can divulge their employment status at those companies at their own accord, if they have a positive view of the employment then they probably will.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse