Apparently, contributing to OSS will make you a great developer
-
@cartman82 said in Apparently, contributing to OSS will make you a great developer:
Or more likely, they have different priorities and goals than you.
Naturally. My goal isn't to make shitty software that's ass. Theirs, apparently, is.
@cartman82 said in Apparently, contributing to OSS will make you a great developer:
And that's perfectly fine. It's their time. They are free to spend it however they see fit.
Sure, they can make all the shitty software they want. I'm not disputing that.
The problem comes in when someone's like, "hey that guy over there making really shitty software? You should learn from him, because he's a genius."
-
@cheong said in Apparently, contributing to OSS will make you a great developer:
Yup. From what I observed, participate in opensource project don't always gain the kind of benefit people keep saying and expect them exists.
And going to a gym doesn't make you look like Arnold. Therefore going to a gym is stupid. But not as stupid as this thread is.
-
@blakeyrat said in Apparently, contributing to OSS will make you a great developer:
The problem comes in when someone's like, "hey that guy over there making really shitty software? You should learn from him, because he's a genius."
Come back to us when someone is like that.
-
@blakeyrat said in Apparently, contributing to OSS will make you a great developer:
Because it's crap, or...?
Are you implying that seeing code you can "barely wrap your mind around" is a good thing, or what's the message here? Because unreadable code is awful, and if that's what you're learning from, you're learning awful code.Code that's doing things I barely understand, but that produce impressive results (eg. graphics programming or shadow DOM resolver or memory allocator or whatever).
Right; you could become an expert at how to ignore user feedback and treat them like shit. You can get a PhD in never QAing any changes ever. Great; just what the software industry needs.
Nah, I can ignore user feedback and treat them like shit just fine on my own, thanks.
-
@cartman82 said in Apparently, contributing to OSS will make you a great developer:
Code that's doing things I barely understand, but that produce impressive results (eg. graphics programming or shadow DOM resolver or memory allocator or whatever).
Is it stuff you barely understand because you lack domain knowledge, or because the code is shitty? That's a critical difference.
-
@blakeyrat said in Apparently, contributing to OSS will make you a great developer:
Is it stuff you barely understand because you lack domain knowledge, or because the code is shitty? That's a critical difference.
Example: Jonathan Blow's graphics programming videos. The moment he starts setting up all these matrices and different projections and doing hacky open-gl hacks, I am lost. Yet, his code is probably as simple as game engine code like that can get.
So I guess, complex and unfamiliar domain knowledge, leading to complex and unfamiliar code.
I wouldn't call any code like that shitty, though, as I don't see myself qualified to judge something I don't fully understand.
-
@boomzilla said in Apparently, contributing to OSS will make you a great developer:
@cheong said in Apparently, contributing to OSS will make you a great developer:
Yup. From what I observed, participate in opensource project don't always gain the kind of benefit people keep saying and expect them exists.
And going to a gym doesn't make you look like Arnold. Therefore going to a gym is stupid. But not as stupid as this thread is.
IMO, it's stupid to say "if you want to be strong, you have to go to gym", while completely neglecting other forms of exercises. Sure you can get advise from a coach that may make your efforts gain better effect, but that is not always happening too.
Anyways, keep saying "if you want to be strong, you have to go to gym" and arguing "doing exercise alone will not do much good to you" will only make you looks like a gym promoter, and yes, it sounds stupid.
-
@cheong said in Apparently, contributing to OSS will make you a great developer:
IMO, it's stupid to say "if you want to be strong, you have to go to gym", while completely neglecting other forms of exercises.
Sure, but that's not what the article did. It gave a list of analogous things for getting strong and mentioned going to the gym. Which predictably drew out the anti-OSS hysterics around here.
-
@cartman82 said in Apparently, contributing to OSS will make you a great developer:
So I guess, complex and unfamiliar domain knowledge, leading to complex and unfamiliar code.
If you're learning domain knowledge from someone writing good code, then I fully endorse that.
The initial statement made it sound like you just believed inherently that any code too complicated for you to wrap your head around was some kind of work of genius. That's what I was objecting to.
@cartman82 said in Apparently, contributing to OSS will make you a great developer:
I wouldn't call any code like that shitty, though, as I don't see myself qualified to judge something I don't fully understand.
Well that's part B of this whole discussion, how do you know Jonathan Blow's code isn't shitty? Sure he's delivered games, but so has Bethesda and I can guarantee Gamebryo/Creation Engine is crammed full of shitty code.
-
@boomzilla said in Apparently, contributing to OSS will make you a great developer:
@cheong said in Apparently, contributing to OSS will make you a great developer:
IMO, it's stupid to say "if you want to be strong, you have to go to gym", while completely neglecting other forms of exercises.
Sure, but that's not what the article did. It gave a list of analogous things for getting strong and mentioned going to the gym. Which predictably drew out the anti-OSS hysterics around here.
That's fair.
-
@boomzilla said in Apparently, contributing to OSS will make you a great developer:
@raceprouk said in Apparently, contributing to OSS will make you a great developer:
But to paint OSS as the only option is a bit short-sighted.
I think this is still in your head, like you're trying to channel blakey or something.
@raceprouk said in Apparently, contributing to OSS will make you a great developer:
Or see if there's a closed-source hobby project you can join. Admittedly, there's far fewer community closed-source projects than OSS, and they're harder to get into, but they do exist.
You're trying reeeeaaaaallllly hard to object to this. Way too hard.
The hedgehog doth protest too much, methinks...
-
@blakeyrat said in Apparently, contributing to OSS will make you a great developer:
If you show me a Lenovo Carbon X1 laptop, and it's shitty, I'm going to say Lenovo Carbon X1 laptops are shitty.
The problem is that you immediately make "Lenovo Carbon X1" as the relevant category to which you apply the "shitty" qualifier. You could equally say "if you show me a laptop and it's shitty I'm going to say laptops are shitty" or even "if you show me a computer and it's shitty I'm going to say computers are shitty". Except you don't, because either you've seen non-shitty laptops (or computers), or more likely because you know that's too broad a generalisation to be really worthwhile.
Same goes for open source:
If you show me an open source project, and it's shitty, I'm going to say open source projects are shitty.
Why do you decide that it is the "open source" bit that is shitty, and not all software? Or software for video editing? Or software on github? Or whatever other category that you could fit that specific project in?
Unless the main (or even sole) characteristic of a product is "open source", you can't say that it being shitty implies all other of the same category are shitty.
-
@jaloopa said in Apparently, contributing to OSS will make you a great developer:
@raceprouk It's hard to contribute to closed source software as a spare time hobby
Maybe you could like, make some small programs and sell them for $1?
But it would work better if you had app stores that didn't charge a 30% commission.
-
@remi said in Apparently, contributing to OSS will make you a great developer:
The problem is that you immediately make "Lenovo Carbon X1" as the relevant category to which you apply the "shitty" qualifier.
That's what's printed on the front of it.
Let's see what's printed at the top of Git's homepage:
Git is a free and open source distribu
Well lookie at that.
If open source fans want me to stop thinking of open source products as shitty, maybe they should stop putting the words "open source" in the first sentence of the description of shitty products. Like I said above, even if it's "just" a branding problem, that's still a problem.
@remi said in Apparently, contributing to OSS will make you a great developer:
You could equally say "if you show me a laptop and it's shitty I'm going to say laptops are shitty" or even "if you show me a computer and it's shitty I'm going to say computers are shitty".
The word "laptop" is not printed on the front of the Lenovo Carbon X1. Neither is the word "computer".
You're way over-thinking this. I'm talking about the branding of the product itself. This laptop is branded "Lenovo Carbon X1". Git is branded "free and open source distributed version control system". For both products, that's literally the first thing you see when you look at it.
@remi said in Apparently, contributing to OSS will make you a great developer:
Why do you decide that it is the "open source" bit that is shitty, and not all software?
All software is shitty. That's definitely part of the problem here.
@remi said in Apparently, contributing to OSS will make you a great developer:
Unless the main (or even sole) characteristic of a product is "open source", you can't say that it being shitty implies all other of the same category are shitty.
That's the bit they're crowing about. (Which, BTW, is stupid anyway-- because to the user the fact that Git is open source is implementation-detail. They don't give a fuck. Why bother even telling them?)
-
@cartman82 said in Apparently, contributing to OSS will make you a great developer:
Code that's doing things I barely understand, but that produce impressive results (eg. graphics programming or shadow DOM resolver or memory allocator or whatever).
I find that open source tends to be much better at implementing things like "an optimizing JIT compiler with modular input and output layers and an efficient garbage collector" than things like "a decent video editor".
-
@anonymous234 said in Apparently, contributing to OSS will make you a great developer:
@cartman82 said in Apparently, contributing to OSS will make you a great developer:
Code that's doing things I barely understand, but that produce impressive results (eg. graphics programming or shadow DOM resolver or memory allocator or whatever).
I find that open source tends to be much better at implementing things like "an optimizing JIT compiler with modular input and output layers and an efficient garbage collector" than things like "a decent video editor".
Agreed. I'm starting to think the rule of thumb should be, open-source libraries, closed-source UX. OSS doesn't have the time and resources to make good UX, but often their libraries run really well (even if they're hard to work with).
-
@yamikuronue said in Apparently, contributing to OSS will make you a great developer:
OSS doesn't have the time and resources to make good UX, but often their libraries run really well (even if they're hard to work with).
I don't even agree with that. (I mean, let me just point out for a second that GTK+ is an open source library. Or that OpenSSH one that recently had all those security holes and now has been turned into 3 mutually-incompatible libraries.)
But it would be great if we could get to a place where even open source fans would admit their UX is shit, right now they're still all "rah rah rah it's perfect, it's perfect, nothing's wrong, it's perfect! If you can't use Git, it's your fault! If VS Code's poorly thought-out design destroys your project, it's your fault!"
-
@blakeyrat said in Apparently, contributing to OSS will make you a great developer:
The problem is that you immediately make "Lenovo Carbon X1" as the relevant category to which you apply the "shitty" qualifier.
That's what's printed on the front of it.
GIS tells me that it says "Lenovo" or "Thinkpad", but not "Carbon X1". If you were only to look at it, you should then have said that all Thinkpads are shitty (unless Thinkpad==Carbon X1? I don't know anything about Lenovo product lines...).Let's see what's printed at the top of Git's homepage:
Git is a free and open source distribu
Meh. You've deliberately cut the sentence to only show this bit. Yes, it's at the start, but that might as well be grammar than priority (i.e. "git is a distributed version control system that is also open source" is much worse writing than when they have!). Why did you decide that the "open source" bit was the bit to blame rather than the "free" bit? Or the "version control" bit?
If open source fans want me to stop thinking of open source products as shitty, maybe they should stop putting the words "open source" in the first sentence of the description of shitty products. Like I said above, even if it's "just" a branding problem, that's still a problem.
They also put a lot of other words and you have chosen to focus on those two words.
All software is shitty. That's definitely part of the problem here.
Well, yeah, I agree with you on that. Why pick on one group specifically rather than on all (shitty) software?
Unless the main (or even sole) characteristic of a product is "open source", you can't say that it being shitty implies all other of the same category are shitty.
That's the bit they're crowing about.
It's on the same level as a lot of other information (like "free", which I hope you'll agree is probably an important factor for many (potential) users), so it doesn't really seem like they're that much crowing about it (from a quick glance). Apart from these two words in the first sentence (and the link), there is a tiny mention in the page footer than no-one will ever read (and that, technically, applies to the web site and not the software, I guess), but other than that, the front page does not scream "open source is really the reason you should consider us".
(Which, BTW, is stupid anyway-- because to the user the fact that Git is open source is implementation-detail. They don't give a fuck. Why bother even telling them?)
I agree that it isn't relevant for most people. Still, we're talking two words on a web page. Really, that's the only thing you see when visiting their page?
(what's more stupid is that their homepage isn't git.org, and that git.org exists and is... a blank page? Who is ever going to remember to go to "git-scm"?)
-
@blakeyrat said in Apparently, contributing to OSS will make you a great developer:
if we could get to a place where even open source fans would admit their UX is shit
I mean, that's what I'm doing, right now, right here, in this thread. Hi! I like open source and I agree that open source UX is pretty much always shit. Nice to meet you.
-
@remi said in Apparently, contributing to OSS will make you a great developer:
GIS tells me that it says "Lenovo" or "Thinkpad", but not "Carbon X1".
It also has the word "Thinkpad", but it's on the keyboard and not the monitor so it's kind of out-of-the-way. But that's pedantic dickweedery, you know exactly what I meant.
The very simple point is that reputation is tied to branding. If shitty things have your branding on them, you're going to have a shitty reputation.
@remi said in Apparently, contributing to OSS will make you a great developer:
Meh. You've deliberately cut the sentence to only show this bit. Yes, it's at the start, but that might as well be grammar than priority (i.e. "git is a distributed version control system that is also open source" is much worse writing than when they have!).
Is this a joke? Or are you making a point? I honestly don't get it.
@remi said in Apparently, contributing to OSS will make you a great developer:
Why did you decide that the "open source" bit was the bit to blame rather than the "free" bit? Or the "version control" bit?
Who says I didn't blame all three bits?
@remi said in Apparently, contributing to OSS will make you a great developer:
They also put a lot of other words and you have chosen to focus on those two words.
You assume I have, but I'm not sure why you assume that.
You asked the question, "why do you think open source is shitty?" So in the reply I focused on "open source". If you had asked, "why do you think version control software is shitty?" then perhaps the answer would have emphasized the phrase "version control".
@remi said in Apparently, contributing to OSS will make you a great developer:
Why pick on one group specifically rather than on all (shitty) software?
I don't?
Again: we're talking about open source software. If you want to hear how closed source software is shitty, hit me up in a thread where we're talking about that.
Look, just because I don't type "I think Nazis are bad" in every single post I write doesn't mean I think Nazis are good. I don't know if you're trying to pull some rhetorical trick here or what, but it's very annoying.
@remi said in Apparently, contributing to OSS will make you a great developer:
Really, that's the only thing you see when visiting their page?
You know what, I give up. I'm just going to go with your retardedness:
Yes. That is the only thing I see. I have incredibly specific tunnel vision.
@yamikuronue said in Apparently, contributing to OSS will make you a great developer:
Hi! I like open source and I agree that open source UX is pretty much always shit.
"Hi! I like shitty software! I'm in the same industry you are, so I'm helping to make the public think all software developers just love shitty software and hate users! Nice to meet you!"
-
@blakeyrat said in Apparently, contributing to OSS will make you a great developer:
"Hi! I like shitty software! I'm in the same industry you are, so I'm helping to make the public think all software developers just love shitty software and hate users! Nice to meet you!"
What do you want?
-
@yamikuronue said in Apparently, contributing to OSS will make you a great developer:
What do you want?
Software developers to have a reputation for creating quality software products people enjoy using. For the "high priesthood of technology" concept to go into the dumpster forever. To stop having to use the shitty software myself because "oh you're a software developer, so it doesn't matter if your tools have good UX or not".
Also ten million dollars and a few acres of oceanfront property.
-
@blakeyrat I want those things too. When you mock me for agreeing with you, it makes me less likely to want to work to improve anything; it feels like it would be pointless, because I'll get shit for it either way.
-
@blakeyrat I replied initially to your post where you said (slight rewording, I'm sure you'll tell me if I got it wrong) "if one software is shitty and also happens to be open source, this means all open source software is shitty". So I tell you that, unless a software is making "open source" as its main selling point, you are the one who decided that "open source" was the characteristic that caused this software to be shitty (and that you could have well have picked another characteristic to complain about). You then tell me that git says "open source" on its front page, which in the light of the previous step I read as you telling me that git does make open source as its main selling point. So I answer that really, the focus on open source is not that strong and that you really have to look for it.
Now, I may have mis-read your previous message (the one where you said they were "crowing about [being open source]" and that "[open source is] literally the first thing you see when you look at it"). If I did, then please re-read that message and tell me what you actually meant, because I don't see how I can read your words in another way than saying that git is pushing the open source bit as a huge argument.
-
@blakeyrat said in Apparently, contributing to OSS will make you a great developer:
But it would be great if we could get to a place where even open source fans would admit their UX is shit,
There is some fine UX on both sides.All UX is shit.
-
@blakeyrat said in Apparently, contributing to OSS will make you a great developer:
Well that's part B of this whole discussion, how do you know Jonathan Blow's code isn't shitty? Sure he's delivered games, but so has Bethesda and I can guarantee Gamebryo/Creation Engine is crammed full of shitty code.
It is kind of shitty. Or at least, very different than what you'd usually consider "well factored" code (SOLID and stuff like that). That's why his streams are interesting.
But overall, he seems to know what he's doing. Even if I don't understand all the details, I have enough experience to tell that much.
As for Gamebryo, that poor engine has been stretched way beyond its limits. I bet if you dug beneath archaeological layers of hacks and extensions, you'd find a well structured kernel of a game engine.
-
@yamikuronue Look at it this way.
You're talking to your friend Ted. And you say, "I like Git." Doesn't matter way; you said above that you like it. Ted now goes, "that Yamikuronue is pretty sharp and I'm kind of interested in software development myself" so he goes and downloads Git, and now he's subject to the worst punishment in the world. It's like the software is kicking him in the balls repeatedly.
What's Ted going to think of software developers? If we're lucky, he's going to think software developers are "only" masochists. More likely, he's going to think software developers are jerks who make terribly punishing things to keep other people out. (And, sadly, he'd actually be right.)
The worst part is: you actually think Git is bad, because you acknowledge that it has bad UX. To normal human beings like Ted, the UX is the software. There is literally nothing about Git that isn't UX. So if it has a bad UX, for all practical purposes, it's bad software. You just recommended terrible software to Ted. Maybe if Ted had asked you specifically what he should try, that wouldn't have happened, but he didn't and now he hates computers.
Let's say you played trumpet. And Ted's interested in playing trumpet. Anybody can learn to blow in a trumpet in a few seconds. Sure you're not going to be first chair in a symphony, but you'll be able to pop-off Three Blind Mice in less than a hour. That's the difference. That's healthy.
-
@blakeyrat said in Apparently, contributing to OSS will make you a great developer:
But that's pedantic dickweedery, you know exactly what I meant.
Yes, rationalizing your rant. We did know that.
-
@remi said in Apparently, contributing to OSS will make you a great developer:
@blakeyrat I replied initially to your post where you said (slight rewording, I'm sure you'll tell me if I got it wrong) "if one software is shitty and also happens to be open source, this means all open source software is shitty".
I never said that.
I did say (not sure if explicitly) that the open source "brand" is a shitty brand with a lot of shitty products under it.
@remi said in Apparently, contributing to OSS will make you a great developer:
So I tell you that, unless a software is making "open source" as its main selling point, you are the one who decided that "open source" was the characteristic that caused this software to be shitty (and that you could have well have picked another characteristic to complain about).
Huh?
No.
The TV isn't a bad TV because it says "Seny" on the front. However, seeing "Seny" on front of a DVD player is a good indication that the DVD player will be just as bad as the TV.
@remi said in Apparently, contributing to OSS will make you a great developer:
So I answer that really, the focus on open source is not that strong and that you really have to look for it.
Right; but it's in the first fucking sentence so you're wrong on that point.
@remi said in Apparently, contributing to OSS will make you a great developer:
I don't see how I can read your words in another way than saying that git is pushing the open source bit as a huge argument.
Read the webpage yourself! It's in the first sentence!
Jesus.
-
@anonymous234 said in Apparently, contributing to OSS will make you a great developer:
I find that open source tends to be much better at implementing things like "an optimizing JIT compiler with modular input and output layers and an efficient garbage collector" than things like "a decent video editor".
Exactly.
That's because only programmers are silly enough to be willing to spend their free time making free stuff. And the former kind of project falls squarely within their sphere of competence.
To get the later right, you need QA, design, managers and a hundred other specialties. And those people don't work for free.
-
@blakeyrat said in Apparently, contributing to OSS will make you a great developer:
What's Ted going to think of software developers? If we're lucky, he's going to think software developers are "only" masochists. More likely, he's going to think software developers are jerks who make terribly punishing things to keep other people out. (And, sadly, he'd actually be right.)
Or he will assume that git is what is considered good in world of developers. So he will persuade himself that it is good in general sense of the word and that he likes it. And then he will become the kind of developer that makes software like git.
I'm pretty sure that's a common situation.
-
@mrl Sadly it probably is.
Now imagine Yami said something like HyperCard. (Nothing like HyperCard exists in 2017, because we live in the worst of all possible worlds, but bear with me.)
Now Ted goes home and downloads HyperCard, and he sees a panel of widgets right there, and he can drag a button onto the page and double-click it and type beep and then when he clicks the button it beeps and he didn't have to learn a command line or anything and he actually has fun with it. The software opens directly into a stack that teaches you exactly how to use the software. The help file's right there, written by professionals in a style that's readable and not too serious. It ships with a half-dozen other stacks that demonstrate different uses of the software.
Because good programming environments are like the trumpet. They're accessible to everybody, and you can have fun with them in only moments.
-
@blakeyrat said in Apparently, contributing to OSS will make you a great developer:
@blakeyrat I replied initially to your post where you said (slight rewording, I'm sure you'll tell me if I got it wrong) "if one software is shitty and also happens to be open source, this means all open source software is shitty".
I never said that.
You said:
@blakeyrat said in Apparently, contributing to OSS will make you a great developer:If you show me an open source project, and it's shitty, I'm going to say open source projects are shitty.
If that isn't more or less equivalent to my rephrasing of "if one software is shitty and also happens to be open source, this means all open source software is shitty", then I don't know what to say.
I did say (not sure if explicitly) that the open source "brand" is a shitty brand with a lot of shitty products under it.
OK, so does the quote above actually meant "all open source is shitty; git is open source, therefore it is shitty"? (if so, I believe the bit where you said "show me an open source project, and it's shitty ..." is what mislead me as it kind of implied that the project was shitty because it was shitty (yeah I know...), not because it was open source... if you think that an open source project can only be shitty, that bit is just muddling up things)
Please note, before you go on another rant about whether I'm reading too literally (or not enough, I don't know...): I am really trying to have a discussion, not to spite you. I really think, like @cartman82, that you are over-generalizing and that because git is shitty and open source, does not necessarily mean all open source projects are shitty. I'm trying to point out that you seem to make the open-sourceness of git one of its defining quality (which would shore your argument), whereas I just see it as one of its characteristics, not necessarily the main one.
So I answer that really, the focus on open source is not that strong and that you really have to look for it.
Right; but it's in the first fucking sentence so you're wrong on that point.
Free is also in the first sentence. And version control. And distributed. And speed. And... well, I don't think I need to copy that full sentence. And again, the page is not made of a single sentence. So OK, I read the first sentence, I can see several characteristics, one of those is open source. One of those. Not the main, not even the first. Then I read anything else on the rest of the page, I might go to another page on the site, and really, the fact that it's open source does not jump at me. But still, somehow, if I have to generalize from git, it's the open source bit that is the only possible relevant category?
-
@remi said in Apparently, contributing to OSS will make you a great developer:
Free is also in the first sentence. And version control. And distributed. And speed.
Right, but like I already said: we weren't talking about those things. So I didn't address them-- you didn't even fucking read my first reply to you, did you? Because you're doing the same thing all over again.
To quote myself:
Look, just because I don't type "I think Nazis are bad" in every single post I write doesn't mean I think Nazis are good. I don't know if you're trying to pull some rhetorical trick here or what, but it's very annoying.
If you want to know what I think about version control software, or fast software, or whatever, ask me. Don't just assume I have an opinion because I never stated I had the opposite opinion, that's not how human communication works.
@remi said in Apparently, contributing to OSS will make you a great developer:
But still, somehow, if I have to generalize from git, it's the open source bit that is the only possible relevant category?
I never fucking said that.
-
@polygeekery said in Apparently, contributing to OSS will make you a great developer:
let me know when you run out of straws
We may be some time…
-
@blakeyrat I notice you keep arguing the same points at me, over and over. It's as if you don't realize I agree with you. This is a weird conversation to have.
-
@blakeyrat said in Apparently, contributing to OSS will make you a great developer:
Free is also in the first sentence. And version control. And distributed. And speed.
Right, but like I already said: we weren't talking about those things.
Well now it's my turn to yell at you that you're not even reading what I wrote. I say there are other things than the open source aspect. You tell me I'm wrong ("you're wrong on that point", there are no two ways to read it). I add more arguments to my position. And then suddenly what matters is what you were talking about 5 posts above. OK. If you didn't like my remark because that wasn't what you wanted to talk about (I get it, threads are free and you don't like when it moves away from the exact point that you were discussing), why did you even answer it? Either you want to discuss that with me, or not. If not, don't fucking answer and later tell me that you didn't want to discuss that.
If you want to know what I think about version control software, or fast software, or whatever, ask me. Don't just assume I have an opinion because I never stated I had the opposite opinion, that's not how human communication works.
I said the focus on open source wasn't that strong on git's webpage. You strongly disagreed. Where in there do you see me assuming an opinion of yours about anything else than whether open source is strongly put forward on git's page?
-
@cartman82 said in Apparently, contributing to OSS will make you a great developer:
How would you even contribute to closed source software?
You could do unpaid QA.
-
@yamikuronue said in Apparently, contributing to OSS will make you a great developer:
@blakeyrat I notice you keep arguing the same points at me, over and over. It's as if you don't realize I agree with you. This is a weird conversation to have.
YMBNH
-
@blakeyrat said in Apparently, contributing to OSS will make you a great developer:
If you show me an open source project, and it's shitty, I'm going to say open source projects are shitty.
What would your opinion of African Americans be if I showed you OJ Simpson?
What would your opinion of caucasians be if I showed you Ed Gein?
-
@remi said in Apparently, contributing to OSS will make you a great developer:
I say there are other things than the open source aspect.
Right; I never said there weren't.
@remi said in Apparently, contributing to OSS will make you a great developer:
You tell me I'm wrong ("you're wrong on that point", there are no two ways to read it).
You're wrong that Git isn't promoting itself as being open source when "open source" is in the very first sentence of its own description of itself. That doesn't mean it isn't also "version control" or "fast" or whatever other thing you imagine I said that I never said.
@remi said in Apparently, contributing to OSS will make you a great developer:
I said the focus on open source wasn't that strong on git's webpage.
You're wrong about that. Again. It's in the first sentence.
@remi said in Apparently, contributing to OSS will make you a great developer:
Where in there do you see me assuming an opinion of yours about anything else than whether open source is strongly put forward on git's page?
Right here:
But still, somehow, if I have to generalize from git, it's the open source bit that is the only possible relevant category?
Let's zoom in and enhance:
the only possible relevant category?
Ah that's weird. Where did the word "only" come from? When did Blakeyrat state that "open source" was the only branding on Git? When did Blakeyrat state that he judges Git based solely on the "open source" branding?
He said neither of those things. You made it up. Then told me I said it. Then disagreed with me.
That sort of thing really pisses me off.
-
@gwowen said in Apparently, contributing to OSS will make you a great developer:
What would your opinion of African Americans be if I showed you OJ Simpson?
Oh please. "Let's try and twist logic so we can paint Blakeyrat like a racist!" Great. This is where the debate is going?
Look: Git chose to put "open source" in the first sentence of their own website. Lenovo chose to put "Lenovo Carbon X1" on the front of their shitty-ass laptop. Nobody chose their skin color; it's a fundamental difference.
-
@remi said in Apparently, contributing to OSS will make you a great developer:
I said the focus on open source wasn't that strong on git's webpage.
You sure?
Seems pretty upfront and important to me.While I'm here:
Yeah... no it isn't.
-
@yamikuronue said in Apparently, contributing to OSS will make you a great developer:
@blakeyrat I notice you keep arguing the same points at me, over and over. It's as if you don't realize I agree with you. This is a weird conversation to have.
It's like you never argued with blakeyrat before.
-
@yamikuronue said in Apparently, contributing to OSS will make you a great developer:
@blakeyrat I notice you keep arguing the same points at me, over and over. It's as if you don't realize I agree with you. This is a weird conversation to have.
You have a fundamental disconnect I can't make in my brain where you:
- Like open source
- Think open source has shitty UX
... how can you like something you acknowledge is shitty? Do you like it ironically, like a guy watching Troll 2? Is that the answer? It just doesn't fit in my braincase.
-
@blakeyrat said in Apparently, contributing to OSS will make you a great developer:
how can you like something you acknowledge is shitty?
The two opinions aren't mutually exclusive.
-
@raceprouk said in Apparently, contributing to OSS will make you a great developer:
@remi said in Apparently, contributing to OSS will make you a great developer:
I said the focus on open source wasn't that strong on git's webpage.
You sure?
Seems pretty upfront and important to me.Oh, come on, you're not going to repeat the same bullshit as @blakeyrat? In which possible world do you read this sentence to mean that they strongly push the fact that they're open source? And did you even move your eyes 5 pixels away from these two words and look at the fucking page? Where else do you see open source mentioned?
Yes, it is open source. Yes, they say it is. Yes, they consider that it is fairly important and needs to be said upfront. But this is literally, in the absolute literal sense of the word literally two words out of... (let me count)... 25. Two fucking words that are Not. Repeated. A. Single. Time. (be grateful I'm not putting shitty clapping hands emojis in there) in the rest of the page (with the exception of the footer but as I said, technically the open sourcedness mentioned there actually refers to the website, not the software).
And that makes it a "strong focus"?
By that measure, your profile page has a strong focus on the fact that you were away for 192 days. Would you really think it fair that someone says this is a strong characteristic of your online presence here?
While I'm here:
Yeah... no it isn't.Toby fair, I'm not a git user and I share a lot of the criticism I've seen of it. But that's beyond the point. I'm not defending git here.
-
@remi said in Apparently, contributing to OSS will make you a great developer:
And that makes it a "strong focus"?
Ok; let's say it was a "weak focus". How does that change my point: that the "open source" brand stands for crummy software?
Let's say my hypothetical shitty TV was labeled in large letters "TelaVizon" and only in small letters did it say "Seny". Does that mean the "Seny" DVD player is going to be high quality?
You're doing this pedantic argument about how prominent the words "open source" are and I'm just sitting here going, "so what?" Either debate the point or not. Talking about how small the font size of two words are is a waste of time, especially when it doesn't even slightly affect the point I was making.
-
@blakeyrat said in Apparently, contributing to OSS will make you a great developer:
Ah that's weird. Where did the word "only" come from? When did Blakeyrat state that "open source" was the only branding on Git? When did Blakeyrat state that he judges Git based solely on the "open source" branding?
He said neither of those things. You made it up. Then told me I said it. Then disagreed with me.
That sort of thing really pisses me off.
Right, so when you say "You asked the question, "why do you think open source is shitty?"", you are allowed to put words that I never said in my mouth, and I am supposed to answer to those. When you say "That's what's printed on the front of [a Lenovo CarbonX1]" and I point out that actually that's not, you are allowed to call that pedantic dickweedery and call me names for not being able to read the idea beyond your words. But if I ever use one hyperbole in my answers, then this is a huge thing and totally prevents you from talking with me. Sorry, prevents the Blakeyrat from talking with me. Or with the remi. I don't know.
-
@remi said in Apparently, contributing to OSS will make you a great developer:
When you say "That's what's printed on the front of [a Lenovo CarbonX1]" and I point out that actually that's not, you are allowed to call that pedantic dickweedery and call me names for not being able to read the idea beyond your words.
I'd say it is. "ThinkPad" is written on the base of the keyboard, which I'd probably call the bottom of the laptop. It's certainly not on the front of it. I don't know what image you dug up, but I'm literally typing on that exact laptop right now this instant.
@remi said in Apparently, contributing to OSS will make you a great developer:
But if I ever use one hyperbole in my answers,
You didn't use hyperbole, you changed the meaning entirely, and you didn't just do it in one of your posts, you did it in several of your posts. That stupid "zoom, enhance" gag was the third time you'd done it in this thread.
"Bob owns a car."
"Bob owns ONLY a car."Do you honestly not see how those two statements are completely different? The second is not a "hyperbole" version of the first, it's saying an utterly different thing.
When you do that, apparently not even realizing you'd done it, yes it does discourage me from wanting to debate with you because you're not playing by the rules.
