Hacker News Reader

> 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.

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.

> 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...

> 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.

> 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...

> 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.

> Luckily he doesn't need to, because (as above) he's obviously talking about the open source community.

Which open-source community? The Linux kernel community is very different from say, the Haskell community (which is also very invested in open-source).

> You couldn't care less.

You accuse me of splitting hairs on semantics, yet you choose to correct me here. You understood what I meant, local slang here (for better or for worse) is to say what I wrote (even if it's not 100% gramatically correct), but you are more than willing to criticise me for not 'accepting' ambiguous language for something that should be 'obvious' to 'the open-source community'...

Surely you can understand the intent of his message and of the phrase which you partially quote.

"Some elements of the open source community are awful to contributors"

"Open source is an awful place to be if you don't have a thick skin"

"The behavior I have observed as a prolific contributor to open source is awful"

All of these statements, I believe, accurately summarize his experience. All of these statements can be summarized "Open source is awful in many ways" for purposes of titling an article.

He's not trying to say that the concept of open source is awful. You don't have to jump in and defend that cause.

It might be more accurate to say "the state of the open source community is awful", but for some folks that are deeply involved in that community that might simply be synonymous with open source itself.

In either case, I think the author made it fairly clear that he was referring to the community and not the concept.

>I've personally had nothing but great encounters with FOSS.

Same here. That doesn't mean there isn't a problem, though. I mean, I'm pretty much a nobody. I haven't contributed to the kernel or created a perl module or created systemd so of course I haven't had any issues.

I'm sure Poettering isn't making this stuff up. People are so pissed at him for systemd and it makes no sense. And he's right to call out Linus for saying those things. Whether you think the people deserve this kind of abuse or not it's just toxic for the community at large and there isn't any reason to say stuff like that (I'm talking death threats or the most hurtful insults you can think of). If someone drops the ball don't take their work and ask them to leave - if they don't, you should be able to ignore them.

>Saying open source is awful because you've encountered assholes is like saying free market economies are awful because some vendor overcharged you one time, or saying cars are awful because some guy cut you off yesterday, or saying free speech is awful because some guy insulted you in public the other day...

What he's actually talking about is a pattern of bad behavior. Of course there are going to be random assholes on the internet - that's not what he's talking about. He's talking about all of the abuse he gets from the actual community on a regular basis. Systemic abuse and vitriol.

I love open source. I owe my career to Linux and my passion about it. But that doesn't mean we can't make it better. And this internet bullying stuff is a real problem - it's very well documented. Ignoring the problem is the worst thing you can do short of contributing to it.

If we're going to have a real community then we have to make sure people feel safe and welcome.

Unfortunately Linux IS the largest piece of Open Source on the planet, dwarfing the other stuff. So its fair to diss OS when Linux has issues.

I don't think so - it may be large by usage and codebase, but it's not where most people have experiences with open source development.

Your response is completely off the mark because in many ways "open source" is as much a community as it is a philosophy. Programming is as much a social activity as it is a technical one. You can release open source works, but if you don't use any social platform to distribute it, who's going to find and use it?

> Your response is completely off the mark because in many ways "open source" is as much a community as it is a philosophy.

Open source is as much a community as the park outside I run in. Other people show up there, some say hi, I meet my friends there sometimes, but the park is not a community.

He's not saying open source is categorically awful, but that there are awful things about it. Pointing out these deficiencies is a way to foster communication to fix shortcomings that may exist in the community. You're right, FOSS has allowed a great many things to happen, but that doesn't mean FOSS and its methods are perfect. Continually revisiting and refining processes should be at the forefront of FOSS.

People can be awful. FOSS is produced by people. When people get together, they argue.

Maybe he should say people who interact online can be awful.