I think it's the entitled aspect of some open source users this is demonstrating.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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" ?