I remember reading an article where the author explained why telling this is free, you can fork, or send a pull request instead of complaining is a form of ableism.
An analogy, which is not 100% accurate, which I used to explain it to ither people is, "it is not very different from a carpenter telling you, ‘the wood is here, the tools also, you can do it yourself it you didn’t like what I did’.
The point is software development is a skill. Not everyone can have that skill. It takes training and practice to be good in the craft. A user of the product does not need the skill to operate it. Never think it is okay to tell people “just fork it” or “why don’t you send a pull request instead of complaining?”.
At the same time, I completely acknowledge that there are some entitled assholes who don’t understand or care about the open source philosophy and how it works. I just wanted to point out that asking to contribute or asking to fork is not the right way to address it.
If I want to paint apples, and you want a painting of pears, it’s not ableist for me to tell you no. It’s not ablist to iterate out your possible options for getting a pear painting either. And that’s what he’s done.
Now, the entire painting profession might be ableist in that there are certainly barriers to entry. But it’s not a single artist’s responsibility to fix painting as a whole.
My point is, if you truly think the situation with raync is ableist, help develop tools so that more people can program. Enable people to program. Don’t just shout down the guy who said “go program”. That doesn’t help.
The same skills used to develop free software can be used to earn a lot of money making corporate software. The same is true for other professions: they can work for an employer, be self-employed, or volunteer their time. The analogy fits, and we all need to earn money to survive.
The carpenter’s “passion project” has turned into a bridge on the city’s main thoroughfare. And now he’s got this great idea for letting a robot maintain it.
The robot’s last job was at the trap door factory.
People are concerned. “My cousin fell through a trap door on the bridge yesterday!” But the carpenter is clear: “Go build your own bridge, then.”
The whole point of giving it away is that it won’t just be in his yard anymore.
that’s his right
Yep, you can argue that the carpenter is within his rights. That’s always a sign that the actor in question is behaving in a constructive way, isn’t it, when the best defense is to run directly to the finer points of what that actor is legally permitted to do?
“That’s his right” is a very narrow lens with which to view the situation. It’s not a POV you’d even choose to bring to the discussion unless you had already decided on the question. It does nothing to address the real-world problems and complaints that are happening. It’s pretty much changing the subject.
Would you make the same “within their rights” argument if the carpenter was Google? Microsoft?
people want him to build his bridge their way and keep using his bridge.
I don’t think that’s accurate. People who rely on rsync want some kind of clear path forward, the option to use something similar in quality to the older versions. If that’s not the original rsync project run by the orginal rsync developer, no one will care much.
It would have been possible for the developer to turn over mainline rsync to someone else, and to go down his AI powered rabbit hole on his own. He could have done all the stuff that was “his right” without being disruptive.
It would have been possible for the developer to turn over mainline rsync
It’s his code. There is no mainline rsync. Whatever the community picks is mainline. When people didn’t like where MySQL was going, they forked and made MariaDB the “mainline”.
If people keep downloading his rsync and not another, that’s their choice. We might not like it but you can’t force people to use the software you prefer.
A paraplegic can’t build a house, but can learn to code.
Sure there are people with cognitive disabilities who might not be able to do it, but you can’t expect every open source project to be completely accessible even to the most severely cognitively impaired. That’s a great way to kill the open source community.
Commerical products should absolutely be required by law to provide reasonable accessibility, because they have the resources and manpower to do so and are driven by a profit motive. Grants should be available to help smaller companies meet these requirements so they’re not disadvantaged relative to the big ones.
But using ableism to justify making excessive demands on open-source project maintainers who in many cases are doing it solo and for free as a passion project, is kind of absurd. And where does it stop? Can I post a silly little flash game on a public git repo intended as nothing more than a personal project for learning Lua scripts, and then some internet rando tells me I have to add full interpretive ASL, real-time alternative text, and optional eye-tracking controls? If that’s above my level, does that mean I can’t post my silly little flash game?
Also, ability is not the same thing as aptitude. Not knowing how to code isn’t a disability any more than not knowing how to wire a house. I can’t tell an electrician (specifically a hobbyist who works for free) that he needs to rewire my house for me just because I don’t know how to do it. I can learn home wiring, or I can pay a professional. But expecting every hobbyist to serve my needs for free just because I don’t have their skill sets would be insane.
But expecting every hobbyist to serve my needs for free just because I don’t have their skill sets would be insane.
I think this mindset shows up often on the Internet because many posters are children. It is normal for them to be given an assignment and have to complete it without compensation. So they think that’s how the world works.
I think many adults are capable of having the mentalities of children, especially when it’s effectively taboo to gently correct behavior.
Abuse is wrong and shouldn’t be tolerated, obviously, but we’ve overcorrected as a society. Teachers, parents, mentors, etc. need to have effective ways of setting ground rules without demeaning and belittling like was so common when I was growing up, or physical violence like the generations before mine experienced.
It just takes some emotional intelligence. It’s possible. Families like that exist, they’re just the exceptions rather than the rule. And people from those healthier backgrounds are by far the more well-adjusted members of society as adults.
I like this analogy. One virtue that it has is: Obviously, not everyone can realistically learn to do their own carpentry. It requires a certain amount of time, space, opportunity, capacity for spatial reasoning, and some minimum level of able-bodiedness. None of which are universally available to everyone.
You’re so self-righteous, you’re plowing through stuff without reading what you’re responding to. This isn’t what you said before, and even your clarification makes no sense in context.
It doesn’t work, anyway. If you can’t build the shelf yourself, what compels the carpenter to make it to your specifications? Even if you paid him? Nothing.
The trouble is, you insist on framing this in terms of the carpenter’s rights. It’s an impoverished view. No one else is looking at it that way, no one is disputing his rights.
what compels the carpenter to make it to your specifications? Even if you paid him? Nothing.
Violating a contract has penalties. Yes he can ignore it and then give your money back with the potential of being required to give extra money back because of the contract violation.
The trouble is, you insist on framing this in terms of the carpenter’s rights.
It wasn’t my analogy. I’m working with what you gave me.
disputing his rights.
Demanding he work for free is disputing his rights.
I remember reading an article where the author explained why telling this is free, you can fork, or send a pull request instead of complaining is a form of ableism.
An analogy, which is not 100% accurate, which I used to explain it to ither people is, "it is not very different from a carpenter telling you, ‘the wood is here, the tools also, you can do it yourself it you didn’t like what I did’.
The point is software development is a skill. Not everyone can have that skill. It takes training and practice to be good in the craft. A user of the product does not need the skill to operate it. Never think it is okay to tell people “just fork it” or “why don’t you send a pull request instead of complaining?”.
At the same time, I completely acknowledge that there are some entitled assholes who don’t understand or care about the open source philosophy and how it works. I just wanted to point out that asking to contribute or asking to fork is not the right way to address it.
That is ridiculous.
If I want to paint apples, and you want a painting of pears, it’s not ableist for me to tell you no. It’s not ablist to iterate out your possible options for getting a pear painting either. And that’s what he’s done.
Now, the entire painting profession might be ableist in that there are certainly barriers to entry. But it’s not a single artist’s responsibility to fix painting as a whole.
My point is, if you truly think the situation with raync is ableist, help develop tools so that more people can program. Enable people to program. Don’t just shout down the guy who said “go program”. That doesn’t help.
Except that in your analogy, the carpenter was working on his own passion project for free.
Exactly. No one expects free work from carpenters, artists, chefs, etc. But for some reason it’s fine to demand things from free software devs?
Not really. This is not about money but about skill. Hence I said this is not 100% accurate and added a proper explanation.
Open source is not about money. The philosophy and culture around it is centered around a set of values. It’s free as in freedom.
The same skills used to develop free software can be used to earn a lot of money making corporate software. The same is true for other professions: they can work for an employer, be self-employed, or volunteer their time. The analogy fits, and we all need to earn money to survive.
Isn’t a lot of the freedom the ability to fork and make your own version if you don’t think the original version fits your needs?
The carpenter’s “passion project” has turned into a bridge on the city’s main thoroughfare. And now he’s got this great idea for letting a robot maintain it.
The robot’s last job was at the trap door factory.
People are concerned. “My cousin fell through a trap door on the bridge yesterday!” But the carpenter is clear: “Go build your own bridge, then.”
It’s still his bridge in his yard even if he had been letting everyone use it.
It’s not his problem. He’s handing out free bridges to everyone. But people want him to build his bridge their way and keep using his bridge.
If he wants to ruin his personal project, that’s his right.
The whole point of giving it away is that it won’t just be in his yard anymore.
Yep, you can argue that the carpenter is within his rights. That’s always a sign that the actor in question is behaving in a constructive way, isn’t it, when the best defense is to run directly to the finer points of what that actor is legally permitted to do?
“That’s his right” is a very narrow lens with which to view the situation. It’s not a POV you’d even choose to bring to the discussion unless you had already decided on the question. It does nothing to address the real-world problems and complaints that are happening. It’s pretty much changing the subject.
Would you make the same “within their rights” argument if the carpenter was Google? Microsoft?
I don’t think that’s accurate. People who rely on rsync want some kind of clear path forward, the option to use something similar in quality to the older versions. If that’s not the original rsync project run by the orginal rsync developer, no one will care much.
It would have been possible for the developer to turn over mainline rsync to someone else, and to go down his AI powered rabbit hole on his own. He could have done all the stuff that was “his right” without being disruptive.
It’s his code. There is no mainline rsync. Whatever the community picks is mainline. When people didn’t like where MySQL was going, they forked and made MariaDB the “mainline”.
If people keep downloading his rsync and not another, that’s their choice. We might not like it but you can’t force people to use the software you prefer.
Analogies are shit and don’t prove anything.
Opinions are shit and don’t prove anything.
I’m completely aware about that. Hence the acknowledgement and explanation in the first comment itself.
A paraplegic can’t build a house, but can learn to code.
Sure there are people with cognitive disabilities who might not be able to do it, but you can’t expect every open source project to be completely accessible even to the most severely cognitively impaired. That’s a great way to kill the open source community.
Commerical products should absolutely be required by law to provide reasonable accessibility, because they have the resources and manpower to do so and are driven by a profit motive. Grants should be available to help smaller companies meet these requirements so they’re not disadvantaged relative to the big ones.
But using ableism to justify making excessive demands on open-source project maintainers who in many cases are doing it solo and for free as a passion project, is kind of absurd. And where does it stop? Can I post a silly little flash game on a public git repo intended as nothing more than a personal project for learning Lua scripts, and then some internet rando tells me I have to add full interpretive ASL, real-time alternative text, and optional eye-tracking controls? If that’s above my level, does that mean I can’t post my silly little flash game?
Also, ability is not the same thing as aptitude. Not knowing how to code isn’t a disability any more than not knowing how to wire a house. I can’t tell an electrician (specifically a hobbyist who works for free) that he needs to rewire my house for me just because I don’t know how to do it. I can learn home wiring, or I can pay a professional. But expecting every hobbyist to serve my needs for free just because I don’t have their skill sets would be insane.
I think this mindset shows up often on the Internet because many posters are children. It is normal for them to be given an assignment and have to complete it without compensation. So they think that’s how the world works.
I think many adults are capable of having the mentalities of children, especially when it’s effectively taboo to gently correct behavior.
Abuse is wrong and shouldn’t be tolerated, obviously, but we’ve overcorrected as a society. Teachers, parents, mentors, etc. need to have effective ways of setting ground rules without demeaning and belittling like was so common when I was growing up, or physical violence like the generations before mine experienced.
It just takes some emotional intelligence. It’s possible. Families like that exist, they’re just the exceptions rather than the rule. And people from those healthier backgrounds are by far the more well-adjusted members of society as adults.
I like this analogy. One virtue that it has is: Obviously, not everyone can realistically learn to do their own carpentry. It requires a certain amount of time, space, opportunity, capacity for spatial reasoning, and some minimum level of able-bodiedness. None of which are universally available to everyone.
Not his problem. You didn’t pay the carpenter.
So the fact that not everyone can be a carpenter would become the carpenter’s problem, if I had paid him?
Huh?
Yes. That’s how everything works. If you don’t know how to build a shelf by yourself or don’t have the time, you pay a carpenter to do what you want.
It’s now the carpenter’s problem to make the shelf with the specifications that you gave him.
You’re so self-righteous, you’re plowing through stuff without reading what you’re responding to. This isn’t what you said before, and even your clarification makes no sense in context.
It doesn’t work, anyway. If you can’t build the shelf yourself, what compels the carpenter to make it to your specifications? Even if you paid him? Nothing.
The trouble is, you insist on framing this in terms of the carpenter’s rights. It’s an impoverished view. No one else is looking at it that way, no one is disputing his rights.
No need for insults.
Violating a contract has penalties. Yes he can ignore it and then give your money back with the potential of being required to give extra money back because of the contract violation.
It wasn’t my analogy. I’m working with what you gave me.
Demanding he work for free is disputing his rights.