Comment by dyeje
5 years ago
The entitlement in this thread is astounding. Don't like how the project is maintained? Fork it. If you don't have anything nice to say to the person who gave you the code _for free_, then just don't say anything at all.
5 years ago
The entitlement in this thread is astounding. Don't like how the project is maintained? Fork it. If you don't have anything nice to say to the person who gave you the code _for free_, then just don't say anything at all.
Especially weird seeing as Github has made forking a very smooth way to work with a project. You fork it, make the changes you want, and then make the changes available upstream.
If upstream vanishes, your fork is still around.
If upstream doesn't want to merge, people can use your fork instead. And, if your changes are that much better, eventually make it the de-facto standard version of the project.
Yes, and it happens all the time in other projects. There's always "so-and-so's fork that implements feature X and changes Y", and it's awesome that that's a possibility since it means no project is held hostage by its maintainer, and that differences in priorities don't mean the code can't be useful for a range of use cases.
The commits you do in a fork are not visible in your GitHub commit calender until you do a PR and they are merged. For some people this is important so a "forked" project won't have many commits with merging back to master.
lol what?
They won't contribute or work on something unless it touches their commit calendar?
I'm kind of…
I guess that's not really a use case I'm concerned with, contribution-wise.
But who knows! Maybe most of open source work is done for personal vanity.
You can merge your commits into a separate branch and designate it as the "default" branch for your repository.
I made much the same point in the other conversation about this.
The beauty of open source code is you can take it, modify it, and even improve and rename it in a lot of cases.
So much of today's internet has to be a fight or a shitstorm. For no reason at all.
The repo currently contains a single README.md.
https://github.com/actix/actix-web
Edit: I was not aware he moved it under his personal github account and it’s still accessible. Nonetheless, I still think removing it is a bit extreme.
Yea, because the maintainer was tired of being abused.
I understand how he may he feeling, but this is probably the most used web framework for Rust. He may be hurting a lot more people and projects then just the people he disagreed with.
A proper way of handling this would have been to abandon the project and let someone else pick it up. My understanding is that he did move the source code under his own git user, so hopefully he’ll allow someone else to pick it and maintain.
8 replies →
He moved the repo's to his personal account. Still there (for now): https://github.com/fafhrd91/actix-web
This argument confuses and saddens me. If I give away free food which I and others know to be contaminated with foodborne pathogens, is it wrong for them to criticize it? What if I don't know, but I obtain it from a supplier which is known to persistently sell contaminated food? What if I put up a sign in very small print saying that the food comes with no warranty whatsoever and all consumers eat it at their own risk? What if I put up a large sign? What if instead of pathogens, I intentionally add lead-based decorations on the basis that they look and taste good, even if they may be slightly carcinogenic if consumed? What if I clearly state that the decorations must be removed before eating? At what point do I acquire moral culpability for the harms suffered by my customers? These sorts of comments seem to imply that there is no problem with me doing any of this, as long as the food is provided for free and consumers have the choice to not take the food. I would vehemently disagree with that claim. Uninformed choice is not a true choice, and even informed choice cannot excuse certain foreseeable harms.
That is an entirely specious analogy. This code will not cause someone to get sick or die. And "contaminated" vs. "not contaminated" is a binary result for food -- one is the case and one is not the case. With code, there's nearly always room for reasonable disagreement as to what is the right/good or wrong/bad way to do things, and often people argue over two (or more) perfectly fine ways of doing things that just come down to a matter of style.
I'm not sure if this will change your mind, but in the Rust world, there's a concept of "unsafe" code that can lead to vulnerabilities.
The difference here is that a code consumer can check a Rust project for unsafe code, whereas a food consumer cannot check for unsafe contaminants.
2 replies →
Indeed. Not to mention, embracing this analogy means literally all food is poison because every piece of software has critical security vulnerabilities whether they are widely known or as of yet discovered.
Are you seriously claiming that food contamination is a "binary" thing? That it's impossible for food to be only a little contaminated, at a level that won't make you "get sick and die?"
Its common knowledge that a certain amount of food contamination is considered safe. And, although specifics are not generally common knowledge, it's easy enough to find that, e.g., the FDA views < 100 ppb of lead in candy as safe.
I don't think hyperbole is helpful to this conversation.
3 replies →
I mean, the license state:
> THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
So if some random person on the side of the street gave away browny, and had a sign like that, I'd do a bit of personal investigating first before eating it, like looking at the ingredients, asking for expiry, and all that. Which you can do for open source software, by just looking at the source code.
There's a difference between leaving poisoned but attractive looking food on a sidewalk, and putting code on github. You're losing perspective regarding open source programming -- it's supposed to be fun. There seems to be a political / ideological dimension to this disagreement. Your nanny state would be correct to punish someone for leaving poisoned food out. But we don't need your nanny state in open source software. People can choose to use or not use free software. Anyone whose software has life or death implications would indeed be culpable if they make those choices rashly. But the responsibility does not lie with the maintainer.