I'm not sure I understand, what is there to see in this link?
Is there some underlying message to all this? Oh well, the issue was handled poorly or maybe the guy just went too far with this accusations, so what?
How'd this get to the front page?:O
Is there some underlying message to all this? Oh well, the issue was handled poorly or maybe the guy just went too far with this accusations, so what?
How'd this get to the front page?:O
Other ways of pissing us off are asking a question which is obviously facepalm-inducingly stupid due to again not having read the documentation/code, or trying to use the product whilst simulataneously not having the first clue on what they're doing (which could be because they're new at coding or handling computer systems in general).
When a producer of Free Stuff gets the kind of bullcrap described above, it wears them down over time.
I have encountered this with my stuff - especially in comments on my blog. I do try to answer questions and be as helpful as possible, but there are some people out there who you just know can't be bothered to do some basic research, or read your helpful instructions, or are basically just too lazy to learn and only want to consume without thinking.
This is what wears people down. It's not just one crappy issue being raised on your stuff in Github, it's the accumulation of this cruft over time - like hundreds of straws piling up on your camel's back - eventually it'll break.
I'm also of the opinion that the time spent raking through libraries that look useful to you to find out if they really are useful to you, more than offsets time you'll spend looking for bugs in your program which were caused by using something which turned out to not do what you thought it did.
I would love to have such reports all the time!!!
1) It is clear from the issue raised, that the creator of the issue did not do his homework. This means actually looking at the README file, and, seeing that the project "exposes the Phantom Open Emoji library unicode/image assets and APIs for working with them", proceed to the link to the Phantom Open Emoji library that the author took the time and trouble to provide a clickable link to , and read on from there.
2) Additionally, the creator of the issue then posted a link to an alternative project.
Ergo, not only was the creator of the issue being lazy in the first place, he then tried to punish the author of the project for that laziness. If you really cannot see this, then I suggest looking again at the project's README, how it describes itself, clicking through to the Phantom Open Emoji library link provided, and reading the information there. Then re-think your opinion on this matter.
- -
For a similar scenario: Imagine if some tiny indie band put up a song or two on their own website for free.
Now imagine if the top response said "You songs aren't as good as Taylor Swift's songs. You should disclose that your band isn't Taylor Swift, so I don't waste my time listening to this, and you should take these songs down and replace them with pirated copies of Taylor Swift songs, because I like them better"
That's effectively what's happening on this issue, in open-source-code form.
They expect everything to be the way they want it. they want all opensourced stuff to be polished, supported and free, without wanting to help out or chiping in.
That would be nice though.
Why would you release something to the public and put your name on it if it's lazily done?
Maybe because github is free for public open source, stuff gets put out there before its polished?
Whether or not something is "lazily done" is besides the point. The point is - they produced _something_, and the consumer did not. If you see something which you think could be done in a better way, wouldn't a better use of your time be spent issuing a pull request with your suggested improvement, rather than whining that "it was lazily done" ?
No software is perfect. It has either no features in it or has bugs. The assholes will either demand to get the missing features added or the bugs fixed.
It may have held (marginally greater) value at some point, but at this point it is just another bullet point clueless HR managers and petty managers can stick next to the "alphabet soup" in their job descriptions.
While the tone of the report may not have been very polite, it is understandable why the reporter was disappointed.
I think it's perfectly reasonable for a user to ask that a library's deficiencies be made obvious in some way, regardless of why they exist. The readme file is a good place for this.
I don't think that Steve handled it very well at all, though. Calling the report creator an "ass" is uncalled for. Creating unnecessary drama over a perfectly reasonable request is uncalled for. Closing the bug without adding a line or two to the readme file addressing this deficiency is uncalled for. Preventing further discussion is uncalled for.
The whine itself stinks of someone not having gone through the source to see if the product really does what they want it to do. It reeks of "hey this looks like what I want YOINK! " , implementing it in their code, and discovering afterwards that some Things are missing. Then getting pissed off at the producer of the product, rather than at themselves for their oversight/laziness.
Having a basic respect for another hacker's time on a project they're maintaining out of the goodness of their heart is what causes people to keep maintaining projects.
Especially since rudeness is a good way to get drama and nothing done. To paraphrase Neil Gaiman, maintainers are not your bitch. Treat them as courteously as you would like to be treated yourself.
I don't see anything wrong with the maintainers response..
The irony being that the victim is a member of Ember.js who is bullying the rest of open source on twitter while touting how they are saving Africa from a Portland coffee shop.
It doesn't matter that the people you are bullying are bullies themselves, that doesn't make your bullying in any way ok.