Toast on Nostr: The marcan blogpost really shows how little he's changed in the past 10-15 years: his ...
The marcan blogpost really shows how little he's changed in the past 10-15 years: his only focus all this while has been "entitled users"
Does he not know that an "entitled user" is what, in the corporate space, they call a "client"?
To give some ground, his personal definition and view of the user feels to be similar to a product owner's user. He has always seemed to want what's best for that user, making sure it's the best possible experience (be it "best possible touchpad drivers" for Asahi, or "the easiest installation experience and native-feel for the Homebrew Channel".) This kind of polish takes time, and some users want many features even if they don't work so well — and they will be vocal about it. They don't care if it's a high standard of quality: just something that works okay enough so you can move on to something else — it can fixed later, right? (spoiler: it almost never is, or can't be fixed later)
What he calls "entitled users" are and always have been the problem with free software (especially if you let contributions/discussions happen or you have a social media presence): they are and will act like clients, especially as people and companies cannot comprehend the issues of open-source.
Your personal life, how much time you put in it and work will never be valued for what it's worth, especially if you're trying to compete against a company (in this case, Apple's macOS), which has infinitely more resources than you do
And that hurts more than working at a company on some shitass project you don't care about that pleases someone's ego, that you stop hearing about after 5pm, and get paid (usually for sitting at the coffee machine most of the time instead of doing the thing they pay you for); because you're pleasing *your* ego doing open-source work.
And of course, in part because of all of the above, open-source work is more political than it is code (and most people don't seem to be able to realise that.) You will always have to fight the maintainers, other contributors, and your users, while managing to stay afloat and motivated to do the work you initially wanted to do and feel happy about it.
It's particularly tougher if you accept donations for it: the "donations" stop being seen as donations by both the receiver and the donators. The receiver of those donations will start seeing them as "payments" for the users' demands (even if the donators are not those users), and the donators often start seeing them as paying for developer support/maintenance. Donations are not supposed to be the usual "contractual handshake of money/acquisition of goods and services", they're supposed to be *donations*: you give money, expect nothing in return. But human brains notoriously don't work like that, and it's a tough challenge psychologically on both sides.
I am, in the end, not surprised it ended up like it did. It was bound to happen eventually, as he was never able to separate himself from social media properly, and never able to properly handle the political and societal aspect of open-source, which is very psychologically taxing. I'm neither blaming him nor blaming Torvalds here (T'so is clearly an asshole though, making that point clear)
All of those are the reasons as to why big (and even small) open-source projects are no longer "hobbyist projects" except for very small patches: can you sincerely believe having to deal with all of this shit? This guy's employed for it, and you're not. Are you seriously going to bend yourself over backwards and hurt yourself psychologically (and let yourself be the target of harassment for it) to *work for free* for some *ungrateful people*? That's the way most people see it as least.
I've personally seen and lived a lot of the things he mentioned (and not necessarily in open-source; including the "two faced behaviour" that I call "the centrist special"). Almost all of those are political problems.
Your way to deal with those comes down to what you truly want by contributing to a project; you're not contributing without intent. Marcan's intention, to the best of my understanding, seems to be pride (and maybe some fame; he's still very proud of his Team Twiizers days, and doesn't really miss a chance to mention them, but that may be attributed to him remembering "good times".) He is proud of his work, and wants his work to be the best. He doesn't seem to separate himself from his work in that regard. As a BDFL, maintainer, contributor, developer: what are your goals with your contributions to open-source software? What are you trying to gain from it? Do you just want this thing that's been bothering you fixed? Or do you want to help a friend? Or do you believe in the software and want to make it good? Maybe your company is using it and so you're contributing to it because that's your work? Do you feel it will change the world? There are many reasons for it, but you should ask yourself that question and truly think about it. It will be key to discover how to deal with the parts you don't like of open-source contributions.
Open-source contributors/maintainers/etc.: please think about *why* you're doing it. Then think about why the other people involved in the same project are doing it. A lot of those political problems come from differences in those goals, and understanding the other person's goal will help you in resolving an eventual conflict. Some people might be malicious, but most people are not, and just have different goals from yours and the project.
Open-source BDFLs/project heads: please make sure to define your project's goals and direction. This will greatly help in handling conflicts, and in making sure the project is what you want it to be, and in giving your contributors guidance. It will also help in resolving such conflicts, and gives you reasoning to accept or reject patches that might be controversial. Writing it down is important not just for others, but for yourself as well.
All I can say to end my rant is, if there is open-source software you appreciate, make sure to tell the people that work and have worked on it. An email, a post, anything; please make yourselves, the non-vocal users, heard so that maintainers and developers may realise the vocal, shitty, "entitled" users are not the only users.
— Hélène (Tosti's wife)
Does he not know that an "entitled user" is what, in the corporate space, they call a "client"?
To give some ground, his personal definition and view of the user feels to be similar to a product owner's user. He has always seemed to want what's best for that user, making sure it's the best possible experience (be it "best possible touchpad drivers" for Asahi, or "the easiest installation experience and native-feel for the Homebrew Channel".) This kind of polish takes time, and some users want many features even if they don't work so well — and they will be vocal about it. They don't care if it's a high standard of quality: just something that works okay enough so you can move on to something else — it can fixed later, right? (spoiler: it almost never is, or can't be fixed later)
What he calls "entitled users" are and always have been the problem with free software (especially if you let contributions/discussions happen or you have a social media presence): they are and will act like clients, especially as people and companies cannot comprehend the issues of open-source.
Your personal life, how much time you put in it and work will never be valued for what it's worth, especially if you're trying to compete against a company (in this case, Apple's macOS), which has infinitely more resources than you do
And that hurts more than working at a company on some shitass project you don't care about that pleases someone's ego, that you stop hearing about after 5pm, and get paid (usually for sitting at the coffee machine most of the time instead of doing the thing they pay you for); because you're pleasing *your* ego doing open-source work.
And of course, in part because of all of the above, open-source work is more political than it is code (and most people don't seem to be able to realise that.) You will always have to fight the maintainers, other contributors, and your users, while managing to stay afloat and motivated to do the work you initially wanted to do and feel happy about it.
It's particularly tougher if you accept donations for it: the "donations" stop being seen as donations by both the receiver and the donators. The receiver of those donations will start seeing them as "payments" for the users' demands (even if the donators are not those users), and the donators often start seeing them as paying for developer support/maintenance. Donations are not supposed to be the usual "contractual handshake of money/acquisition of goods and services", they're supposed to be *donations*: you give money, expect nothing in return. But human brains notoriously don't work like that, and it's a tough challenge psychologically on both sides.
I am, in the end, not surprised it ended up like it did. It was bound to happen eventually, as he was never able to separate himself from social media properly, and never able to properly handle the political and societal aspect of open-source, which is very psychologically taxing. I'm neither blaming him nor blaming Torvalds here (T'so is clearly an asshole though, making that point clear)
All of those are the reasons as to why big (and even small) open-source projects are no longer "hobbyist projects" except for very small patches: can you sincerely believe having to deal with all of this shit? This guy's employed for it, and you're not. Are you seriously going to bend yourself over backwards and hurt yourself psychologically (and let yourself be the target of harassment for it) to *work for free* for some *ungrateful people*? That's the way most people see it as least.
I've personally seen and lived a lot of the things he mentioned (and not necessarily in open-source; including the "two faced behaviour" that I call "the centrist special"). Almost all of those are political problems.
Your way to deal with those comes down to what you truly want by contributing to a project; you're not contributing without intent. Marcan's intention, to the best of my understanding, seems to be pride (and maybe some fame; he's still very proud of his Team Twiizers days, and doesn't really miss a chance to mention them, but that may be attributed to him remembering "good times".) He is proud of his work, and wants his work to be the best. He doesn't seem to separate himself from his work in that regard. As a BDFL, maintainer, contributor, developer: what are your goals with your contributions to open-source software? What are you trying to gain from it? Do you just want this thing that's been bothering you fixed? Or do you want to help a friend? Or do you believe in the software and want to make it good? Maybe your company is using it and so you're contributing to it because that's your work? Do you feel it will change the world? There are many reasons for it, but you should ask yourself that question and truly think about it. It will be key to discover how to deal with the parts you don't like of open-source contributions.
Open-source contributors/maintainers/etc.: please think about *why* you're doing it. Then think about why the other people involved in the same project are doing it. A lot of those political problems come from differences in those goals, and understanding the other person's goal will help you in resolving an eventual conflict. Some people might be malicious, but most people are not, and just have different goals from yours and the project.
Open-source BDFLs/project heads: please make sure to define your project's goals and direction. This will greatly help in handling conflicts, and in making sure the project is what you want it to be, and in giving your contributors guidance. It will also help in resolving such conflicts, and gives you reasoning to accept or reject patches that might be controversial. Writing it down is important not just for others, but for yourself as well.
All I can say to end my rant is, if there is open-source software you appreciate, make sure to tell the people that work and have worked on it. An email, a post, anything; please make yourselves, the non-vocal users, heard so that maintainers and developers may realise the vocal, shitty, "entitled" users are not the only users.
— Hélène (Tosti's wife)