OSS Arrogance

phrakture · 2006-05-18 20:55:16

I saw this come through the wmii mailing list:
http://www.wmii.de/urxvt.bug

And it ruffles my tail feathers. This is not the only instance I've seen of OSS developers being arrogant with their works. "Mine works, yours must be wrong".

Grrr...

It's a long read, but the bottom makes up for it. For the record, "garbeam" is the main developer for WMII, and "schmorp" is the main developer for rxvt-unicode.

stavrosg · 2006-05-18 21:26:41

I've seen this kind of behaviour, and it sucks, indeed.
The good thing in OSS though is that you can still look up the source code and make a patch, even if the developer(s) say that there is nothing wrong in there.

It gets a bit more difficul to raise a point if you only got a stripped binary.

stonecrest · 2006-05-18 21:31:51

So the mere fact that this involves OSS developers makes this OSS arrogance? Come on, this is found in every facet of the software world, I don't get what the big deal is.

phrakture · 2006-05-18 21:46:13

stonecrest wrote:

So the mere fact that this involves OSS developers makes this OSS arrogance? Come on, this is found in every facet of the software world, I don't get what the big deal is.

That's not true. In many software companies, including ones I've worked for, the "customer comes first" - if a paying customer reports a bug and/or feature, it is handled with much more importance than a normal in-house bug report.

This is titled "OSS Arrogance" because the whole theory behind OSS is progress, and being an ackjass is mutually exclusive with forward progress.

Following the GNU Philosophy, violently protecting your software because it is "yours" is considered "obstructing software":

Restrictions on the distribution and modification of the program cannot facilitate its use. They can only interfere. So the effect can only be negative. But how much? And what kind?

Three different levels of material harm come from such obstruction:

    * Fewer people use the program.
    * None of the users can adapt or fix the program.
    * Other developers cannot learn from the program, or base new work on it.

If you can explain how statements like this:

<schmorp> but please refuse form making outright wrong claims that on top of it are easy to verify
<schmorp> if you behave like an idiot, people might perceive you as an idiot

without consideration of the problem report is not "restriction on the modification of software", then I will happily change the title.

cactus · 2006-05-18 22:23:51

I tend to see rampant zealotry alot in software these days. More often in open source, where the vested personal interest seems higher.

People often identify themselves, and their onlne 'social groups' based upon what software they use, as apposed to compatible personality traits.

Consider a sporting event. People who root for the same team sitting together, and talking to each other in a friendly manner (users of the same software). They are friendly and genial, based upon a shared personal interest perception. When two opposing "rooters" sit together, there is often thinly veiled hostility.

This is also present in open source software. Here though, people have even more percieved vested personal interest, as they may use the software themselves (instead of just watching and rooting for a given team). People largely define themselves by what they do. If this includes using certain software (and liking it), then generally..they are zealous in their conversations regarding it. In this way, open source software often becomes almost religious to some people.

Also, the relationship between users/developers in open source, is much different than the producer+consumer model of pay for software. The pay for software company lives off the vested interest in the customer, and so responds more quickly to customer needs. The response may not be actual action..but may be a simple perception issue. "At least placate the customer somehow" seems to be the mantra. Open source software generally does not place such a high regard on the customer's feelings. If an issue is seen as truly problematic, it is often addressed more quickly. If it is not, then the issue is often left untouched. In opensource, the codebase itself is generally the most valued aspect. This is not always the case, but often it is.

Sure, "customers" contribute bug tracking, but most developers dont view this feedback very highly (although they should). Open source generally values you only insofar as the code that you cantribute, or the help to the project you can provide. If you contribute no code, or some other valuable resource to the project, then you are less "useful" in the eyes of that project. While depressing to the simple end user, I see some validity in this point. If the drive is to get the best software done to suite the developer's need, then use cases that do not apply to this (from other users) are of little concern. Here the intent and scope are important to determine both the user repayment model, and the interaction model.

I have thought of this subject for a while. I find the apple users to be the most interesting, as they have a very opensource philosophy towards the mac os, which is a very proprietary system. I don't often see windows users with such biased opinions. I do see this same attitude from many open source users.

Very interesting..
nice topic phrak.

phrakture · 2006-05-18 22:56:00

Long post! Yaaaay!

cactus wrote:

Consider a sporting event. People who root for the same team sitting together, and talking to each other in a friendly manner (users of the same software). They are friendly and genial, based upon a shared personal interest perception. When two opposing "rooters" sit together, there is often thinly veiled hostility.

Great analogy. Emacs sucks! Spaces not tabs! KDE sucks!

Yeah, it's apparent. I think the nay-sayers are more common. When it comes to the typical holy-wars, most people don't speak up until they find their ideals threatened. "Oh, you use emacs? Well it sucks. Use vim"

cactus wrote:

Open source software generally does not place such a high regard on the customer's feelings.

And rightly so. Most free software is of the "scratch-an-itch" type, made for the author, with little regard for who else it effects. Notable exceptions are things like vim, which is driven by support for poor children in Uganda.
I don't really think the producer/consumer model fits to OSS development.

A better analogy, though less pleasant and possibly offensive, is the organism-parasite analogy. The organism (author) creates/changes something to sustain himself. Others come along and say "this looks nice, I will ride along with you as I can benefit from it as well". If something goes wrong, the parasites either flee for a better source of sustanance, or cause pain to the organism until it picks up where it should have.
There are usually some other organisms who are able to aid the origianal, but the parasites still exist, and usually far outnumber the actual organisms trying to keep things in check.

cactus wrote:

I have thought of this subject for a while. I find the apple users to be the most interesting, as they have a very opensource philosophy towards the mac os, which is a very proprietary system. I don't often see windows users with such biased opinions. I do see this same attitude from many open source users.

Hmm, odd. I don't have alot of experience with mac users, so can't say either way. I definately agree that windows users do not feel the same way. I have never really seen Windows zealotry.

cactus wrote:

nice topic phrak.

Wewt!

dtw · 2006-05-19 07:12:50

I have never really seen Windows zealotry

Really? Look at the newbie section on any general Linux board

paranoos · 2006-05-19 07:58:51

heh i noticed my own zealotry in my reading of the irc script.

i'm a user of urxvt. i'm not a big fan of wmii / ion type window managers. nothing against them, i just prefer pekwm. anyway, i sympathized more with the urxvt dev!

the conversation is a typical clash of two large egos. nothing against large egos, i think they are helpful when running a large OSS project having written my own share of bug reports, you really have to make obvious what behaviour is expected, and what actually happens. going into specifics and details does not help.

the real sad thing is that the contributed bugfix never got applied. i suspect the urxvt dev put the wmii dev on ignore.

Gullible Jones · 2006-05-19 11:12:19

dtw wrote:

I have never really seen Windows zealotry
Really? Look at the newbie section on any general Linux board

Well, I've never really seen Win zealotry there either... More like general complaints that Windows just works and Linux just doesn't. Mostly complaints about the necessity of configuration, but to be fair (although I don't see it get brought up much), streaming multimedia on *nix is really crippled, and by more than just patent stuff - all streaming multimedia has been completely broken in KDE since 3.3, for example.

iphitus · 2006-05-19 11:23:05

Gullible Jones wrote:

dtw wrote:
I have never really seen Windows zealotry
Really? Look at the newbie section on any general Linux board
Well, I've never really seen Win zealotry there either... More like general complaints that Windows just works and Linux just doesn't. Mostly complaints about the necessity of configuration, but to be fair (although I don't see it get brought up much), streaming multimedia on *nix is really crippled, and by more than just patent stuff - all streaming multimedia has been completely broken in KDE since 3.3, for example.

Try neowin.net, or try failed linux converts, or find any linux bagging nerd and you've got yourself a windows zealot. I'm friends with a total microsoft zealot, it's quite interesting. Great arguments, and great discussion on a peaceful middle ground known as Apple.

Anyway, there's no bugs in open source software, it's the users who are bugged...

im kidding.

James

vacant · 2006-05-19 11:24:43

This printer driver thread is an example of an OSS advocate going too far where he would have cost people money if he had gone unchallenged. Initially he denies a solution exists, then denies it's free and even starts offering a "guarantee for a perfect upgrade" to OSS software. Meanwhile the OP confirms he doesn't mind a closed source solution and later goes on to say it's working fine, saved him buying a new printer and he's moving from the free version to buy the licence.

cactus · 2006-05-19 15:43:09

iphitus wrote:

Try neowin.net, or try failed linux converts, or find any linux bagging nerd and you've got yourself a windows zealot.

No, you've got yourself someone who hates linux. There is a difference.
"zomg linux sucks" is not the same as "zomg, windows will tuck you in at night and keep you safe!"

phrakture · 2006-05-19 15:45:23

cactus wrote:

iphitus wrote:
Try neowin.net, or try failed linux converts, or find any linux bagging nerd and you've got yourself a windows zealot.
No, you've got yourself someone who hates linux. There is a difference.
"zomg linux sucks" is not the same as "zomg, windows will tuck you in at night and keep you safe!"

Right, that's what I meant, too.

There are the "omg I tried linux and I couldn't get it to work, it must suck" people, then the "I will never try linux" people, and finally the "I ran linux for 3 years and nothing compares to Windows XP. It is a dream to use and far superior to anything Open Source can offer" people.

I implied group 3.

codemac · 2006-05-19 18:56:06

As probably one of the biggest zealots around *cough* GNU SCREEN! ZSH! ION3! WEECHAT! URXVT! MUTTNG! RTORRENT! *cough*, this was an interesting read, as I like both ion3, wmii, and urxvt. The problem really is that some people do only the standard, some people do only what they want, and some people do the standard and more.

All of these lead to people thinking their way of doing it is the correct way. Standard or no standard. What really should happen is that people making their app work. If it's your app that breaks, you should fix it. Now this may lead you to think that you are making your code bloated, and covering more bases than it should, but this isn't about how your code _should_ be written, it's about your code working for other people.

That's right, I said it. If you release code into open source, you had better have some bug tracker or something going. Sure, you don't _have_ to do anything, but to release code and assume that other people aren't going to break it is naive. Releasing the code into the public means you want the public to use the code. I don't release everything I write in the public for the very reason that I wrote it for myself, not the public. If I want others to use it, then I will.

Chris|MD · 2006-05-19 19:06:03

Heh funny.
Yesterday i was sitting on my bed.
Thinking about the community, the woes of linux and some words i really need to tell em all.
If my english would be better i would do it but eh...
There is so many rubbish out there. Arch is hit by a clump arrogance too.
If we all pause or do what the urxvt dev does we have a linux in 50 years, which supports only 1% of the hardware, is only used by 1% of all people, has only 1% of all those wonderful windows/mac applications and has only 1% of people in the community who realize that we have some kind of problems...

rezza · 2006-05-20 01:39:29

phrakture wrote:

A better analogy, though less pleasant and possibly offensive, is the organism-parasite analogy. The organism (author) creates/changes something to sustain himself. Others come along and say "this looks nice, I will ride along with you as I can benefit from it as well". If something goes wrong, the parasites either flee for a better source of sustanance, or cause pain to the organism until it picks up where it should have. There are usually some other organisms who are able to aid the origianal, but the parasites still exist, and usually far outnumber the actual organisms trying to keep things in check.

Hahaha, best analogy ever!

Urxvt man was being a cock, but tbh wmii man wasn't helping... but who the hell cares? Dev won't fix your bug? Fix it yourself, make the patch available, move on. Don't lose any sleep over this shit, it just isn't worth it.

Egos abound, and the idea that egos are more pronounced in the OSS world is, imho, laughable. Even in commercial, proprietary software houses, you'll get egos like this when one in-house dev finds a bug that another in-house dev is certain doesn't exist, etc etc. Just because it's not visible to Joe User through the highly-monitored public facade doesn't mean that the egos and the arguments don't happen. Believe me, this kind of crap happens all the time in proprietary software companies.

Also, demanding that code be patched or fixed is just unbelievably rude imho... if you release code into the public under the GPL for example, then that's all it is - some code. There is no guarantee of any kind that it will work or continue to work or be fixed if it breaks. Don't just assume the developer gives a shit, they may not. Is it better to release some code under the GPL and then only work on the functionality and bugs that you personally care about, or to not release it in the first place? If I write a piece of software for purely selfish reasons, and with no intention of listening to any other users, should I release it anyway, just for the hell of it?

OK, rambled a bit there, sorry.

cactus · 2006-05-20 01:51:52

rezza wrote:

Egos abound, and the idea that egos are more pronounced in the OSS world is, imho, laughable. Even in commercial, proprietary software houses, you'll get egos like this when one in-house dev finds a bug that another in-house dev is certain doesn't exist, etc etc. Just because it's not visible to Joe User through the highly-monitored public facade doesn't mean that the egos and the arguments don't happen. Believe me, this kind of crap happens all the time in proprietary software companies.

I disagree that it is laughable..and such a flippant disregard for an opposing opinion makes reasonable dialog difficult.

That said, yes...Egos are everywhere. You can go to the supermarket around the corner, and likely find someone mopping a floor who thinks he is the best floor mopper in the universe. I *do* believe that OSS developers have a propensity for larger egos than do proprietary developers. It is a somewhat blanket statement, but we are shooting wide angle here anyway.

OSS has many intangible rewards. I think it provides an outlet, and attracts devs that are drawn to notoriety and/or fame, to a slightly larger degree than is offered by proprietary software. Is this a bad thing? I don't believe it is.

rezza · 2006-05-20 01:59:24

cactus wrote:

I disagree that it is laughable..and such a flippant disregard for an opposing opinion makes reasonable dialog difficult.
That said, yes...Egos are everywhere. You can go to the supermarket around the corner, and likely find someone mopping a floor who thinks he is the best floor mopper in the universe. I *do* believe that OSS developers have a propensity for larger egos than do proprietary developers. It is a somewhat blanket statement, but we are shooting wide angle here anyway.
OSS has many intangible rewards. I think it provides an outlet, and attracts devs that are drawn to notoriety and/or fame, to a slightly larger degree than is offered by proprietary software. Is this a bad thing? I don't believe it is.

Hmm, different people are motivated by different things. I personally haven't noticed problematic egos being, in general, more common in OSS than in commercial software development. In fact, I think that in general, OSS devs are more open and friendly and receptive to constructive criticism than in the commercial world, basically because if they act like an arrogant arsehole, then the whole world can see that they have acted like an arrogant arsehole. If Jimmy McCoder, working for a financial software company somewhere gets constructive criticism from a coworker, he can mouth off at the coworker with impunity, since his boss likely knows sweet F A about coding and nobody in the outside world will ever hear about it. Of course, your experiences may have been different to mine.

cactus · 2006-05-20 02:07:56

Hmmm... that is interesting.

Maybe it just *seems* that open source egos are greater. Possibly due to the thing you just mentioned. When an open source dev is very ego centric, people generally know about it much sooner, and to a wider scope.

If theo of openbsd were stuck in some large company, or if hans reiser only wrote his file systems for internal use somwhere, we likely *wouldn't* know much about the size of their egos.

I do believe that open source supplies much of what people driven by ego based development seek (volume, scope, audience, and power through code).. It may also be that it is more visible, so it seems greater.

Interesting food for thought, at the very least..
*beard scratching*

user · 2006-05-21 15:00:09

stonecrest wrote:

So the mere fact that this involves OSS developers makes this OSS arrogance? Come on, this is found in every facet of the software world, I don't get what the big deal is.

agreed

Hands-on..

phrakture · 2006-05-22 04:38:27

I think you're kind of missing the point of posting this. Yes people are arrogant everywhere. That's fine. That's not the issue.

The philosophy of Open Source, for the betterment of all involved, is exculsive to arrogance. Being arrogant about your product, which was given to the community for the good of everyone, is counterproductive.

No where in the original post did I say "this only happens with open source software" or "this is totally different than closed source software" - the opperative point is that producing open source software should remove arrogance involved.

user · 2006-05-22 06:56:08

IMHO, developer must be arrogant.

So why not OSS-developer?

iphitus · 2006-05-22 07:31:17

user wrote:

IMHO, developer must be arrogant.
So why not OSS-developer?

Did you read the conversation linked in the first post?

Arrogance to the stage that you refuse to accept bug reports, is something that is not wanted.

Take a purely hypothetical example. there's a critical problem in ricefs4 and the developer is arrogant and ignores the bug as his code is supreme and perfect. There's every chance that someone will then lose their data because of this 'bug'.

We dont want that, and we dont really want any arrogance. I'd much rather a modest and honest developer who can admit errors, accept bug reports, and in turn be a much better person to work with, resulting in a better project.

James

phrakture · 2006-05-22 07:37:55

user wrote:

IMHO, developer must be arrogant.
So why not OSS-developer?

Really? Cool! I'll make sure to close all your bug reports saying "No, not a bug - you're wrong and I'm right!"
I MUST be arrogant, right?

user · 2006-05-22 09:00:07

iphitus wrote:

user wrote:
IMHO, developer must be arrogant.
So why not OSS-developer?
Did you read the conversation linked in the first post?

No. and i wouldn't.

BTW, the link can cover all foss developer?

Arch Linux

#1 2006-05-18 20:55:16

OSS Arrogance

#2 2006-05-18 21:26:41

Re: OSS Arrogance

#3 2006-05-18 21:31:51

Re: OSS Arrogance

#4 2006-05-18 21:46:13

Re: OSS Arrogance

#5 2006-05-18 22:23:51

Re: OSS Arrogance

#6 2006-05-18 22:56:00

Re: OSS Arrogance

#7 2006-05-19 07:12:50

Re: OSS Arrogance

#8 2006-05-19 07:58:51

Re: OSS Arrogance

#9 2006-05-19 11:12:19

Re: OSS Arrogance

#10 2006-05-19 11:23:05

Re: OSS Arrogance

#11 2006-05-19 11:24:43

Re: OSS Arrogance

#12 2006-05-19 15:43:09

Re: OSS Arrogance

#13 2006-05-19 15:45:23

Re: OSS Arrogance

#14 2006-05-19 18:56:06

Re: OSS Arrogance

#15 2006-05-19 19:06:03

Re: OSS Arrogance

#16 2006-05-20 01:39:29

Re: OSS Arrogance

#17 2006-05-20 01:51:52

Re: OSS Arrogance

#18 2006-05-20 01:59:24

Re: OSS Arrogance

#19 2006-05-20 02:07:56

Re: OSS Arrogance

#20 2006-05-21 15:00:09

Re: OSS Arrogance

#21 2006-05-22 04:38:27

Re: OSS Arrogance

#22 2006-05-22 06:56:08

Re: OSS Arrogance

#23 2006-05-22 07:31:17

Re: OSS Arrogance

#24 2006-05-22 07:37:55

Re: OSS Arrogance

#25 2006-05-22 09:00:07

Re: OSS Arrogance

Board footer