this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2024
458 points (99.1% liked)
Open Source
31717 readers
86 users here now
All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!
Useful Links
- Open Source Initiative
- Free Software Foundation
- Electronic Frontier Foundation
- Software Freedom Conservancy
- It's FOSS
- Android FOSS Apps Megathread
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to the open source ideology
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
- !libre_culture@lemmy.ml
- !libre_software@lemmy.ml
- !libre_hardware@lemmy.ml
- !linux@lemmy.ml
- !technology@lemmy.ml
Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I haven't read to far into this but the issue is completely devoid of contributors and maintainers. I find the wording of the issue quite concerning:
This is free software, they don't owe you anything and this kind of language sounds angry and entitled. You can't just Gordon Ramsay on someone else's codebase.
I cannot fathom what in this issue description gives rise to your concern. It’s worded very calmly, clearly explaining why the author thinks these BLOBs shouldn’t be there, expressing an understanding that it’s not a top priority and even closing with a thank you.
Is this not rude:
And this:
We didn’t like it when MS made an issue trying to direct ffmpeg
They should have opened with a complement or asked for directions if they didn’t know. In this message “Thank You” means fuck all
No. The commenter is voicing their own feelings and explains why they have them. There is neither blaming nor rudeness here.
It would have been nice if you had explained why you think this is rude. The author expresses understanding that the maintainers’ priorities don’t align with the author’s. This seems to be an uncontroversial statement to me.
Then the author explains (I agree, it’s more a hint than an explanation) why they think the priorities should be changed. In my view their argument is sound. Again, there is no blaming or rudeness here.
I assume you mean “compliment”.
I’ve often heard of the “sandwich technique” – start with a compliment, then voice criticism, end with another positive thing. I find this is an appropriate procedure when voicing open feedback, that is, good things and bad things. However, this is a Github issue. Its whole point is to point out a perceived problem, not to give the maintainers a pat on the back or thank them.
I don't understand how "appalled" being strong language is so controversial, maybe everyone here is just a rude little shit.
I would have worded it like so:
I did it with less anger and entitlement and in less words
Or maybe you’re just a snowflake that can’t handle criticism.
I didn't say they're wrong it's the way they communicated which I found off-putting and Gordon Ramsay -esque
Actually you can and should Gordon Ramsey all over it. It is the duty of audience members to express how they feel honestly about the artwork.
Open Source can and do understand that and open source software becomes better for it.
I’m not saying don’t criticise it. It’s about communication. The language isn’t very good. See my other comments
Yes, that's users for you. A diverse bunch and many lacking in basic politeness. But you just have to listen to whiney users. You just have to... and figure it out if you want to make world class software.
I mean the author has simply ignored this issue. If you look into it there are a few that people simply do not know how to generate, so without the maintainer it's impossible to make a PR solving this.
I mean if I got an issue that sounded that entitled and this is something I do in my spare time, I'd probably ignore it.
My point is they could have worded it better and it might have gotten a response. If you ask kindly about the BLOBs and maybe for some help to push you in the right direction instead of saying "I don't know", then it is fair to call the maintainer rude for ignoring it completely.