this post was submitted on 27 Apr 2024
119 points (89.4% liked)

Linux

48157 readers
583 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml
nooter692@lemmy.ml
MarcellusDrum@lemmy.ml
cypherpunks@lemmy.ml
cyclohexane@lemmy.ml
d3Xt3r@lemmy.nz
119
Much ado about "nothing" - Xe Iaso (==Goodbye NixOS) (xeiaso.net)
submitted 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) by lemmyreader@lemmy.ml to c/linux@lemmy.ml
83 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

https://discourse.nixos.org/t/much-ado-about-nothing/44236

Not directly related to this blog post but from NixOS discourse forum, a tl;dr from another person about the NixOS drama here :

If you’re looking for a TL;DR of the situation, here it is:

    Nix community had a governance crisis for years. While there has been progress on building explicit teams to govern the project, it continued to fundamentally rely on implicit authority and soft power

    Eelco Dolstra, as one of the biggest holders of this implicit authority and soft power, has continuously abused this authority to push his decisions, and to block decisions that he doesn’t like

    Crucially, he also used his implicit authority to block any progress on solving this governance crisis and establishing systems with explicit authority

    This has led uncountably many people to burn out over the issue, and culminated in writing an open letter to have Eelco resign from all formal positions in the project and take a 6 month break from any involvement in the community

    Eelco wrote a response that largely dismisses the issues brought up, and advertises his company’s community as a substitute for Nix community
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] gian@lemmy.grys.it -1 points 6 months ago (2 children)

I think people like you really don't understand what OSS software is.

What you don't understand is that OSS let you do what you want with the software I (an possibly others) created but not let you to dictate to me how I must run the project or what direction the project need to go.
We can discuss of course, and maybe sometimes I agree with you and sometimes not (and the contrary) but in the end I am the maintainer so I have the last word.

So no, if I create an OSS project and have a vision for it, if you don't agree I am fully entaitled to say "ok, just make your own, fork mine if you like" to you.

[–] eupraxia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

While this is true to an extent, from experience this line of thinking has its limits and is very easy to misapply. On the one hand, yes you can tell people their ideas do not gel with the vision of the project, and sometimes that's the right call. And sometimes doing this a lot is best for the project.

On the other hand, even if a majority of the work is coming from one person, not only does your community learn your project, they also spend time contributing to it, fixing bugs, and helping other people. I feel it's only to a project's benefit to honor them and take difficult suggestions seriously, and get to the root of why those suggestions are coming up. Otherwise you risk pissing off your contributors, who I feel have the right to be annoyed at you and maybe post evangelion themed vent blog posts if you consistently shut down contributors' needs and fail to adapt to what your users actually want out of your software. And forking, while freeing and playing to the idea of freedom of choice, also splits your userbase and contributors and makes both parties worse off. It really depends on the project, but it pays to maintain buy-in and trust from people who care enough to meaningfully contribute to your project.

[–] baru@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

While this is true to an extent, from experience this line of thinking has its limits and is very easy to misapply.

If the majority of contributions come from one person, then yeah, maybe that person should dictate everything. Else you'd miss out on all of those contributions, no?

I use Home Assistant. If reported a few bugs. Every single time I get a really friendly response. Often things are fixed quickly. Things are discussed, different opinions seem to be appreciated and considered. This doesn't mean that they'll do whatever someone suggests.

What I find funny about the one contributor who does the majority of the work situation is that it can also be seen in a different way.

Home Assistant as a project has grown like crazy. I'm unable to say exactly why that it, I must see it a great accomplishment.

At one point Home Assistant was just one person doing the majority of the work. Nowadays it is far from that. Pointing towards just one person doing most of the work ignores how it maybe could be. Meaning, maybe with "magic" the project would be crazily bigger. With a crazy amount of contributors. With maybe people paid for by companies to contribute.

That's what I find lacking in the logic as said by some comments (not by you). It's a comparison of the current status, not of different outcomes. And those outcomes could be worse, or better.

[–] hagar@lemmy.ml 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I guess it can be simple like that when you are the maintainer. It is definetly not as simple when there are many of them. Of course you can run it like that and many do, but the whole mentality is pretty limited.

My statement is not that you have to do whatever anyone asks in your project that you maintain. My statement is that a community that contributes towards a project has a say in it. You might want to ignore it, handle it BDFL-style, politely and cynically decline, whatever.

Not really about what is the absolute correct answer. Our values are clearly different. More like what I believe works best in the long term.

[–] gian@lemmy.grys.it 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I guess it can be simple like that when you are the maintainer. It is definetly not as simple when there are many of them. Of course you can run it like that and many do, but the whole mentality is pretty limited.

Why limited ?. In the end I am pursuing my vision for the project.

Not really about what is the absolute correct answer. Our values are clearly different. More like what I believe works best in the long term.

I just acknowledge that at some point the vision of the author(s) and the vision of the community (or part of it) can differ and that at this point it is better for everyone to follow their vision.

[–] hagar@lemmy.ml 1 points 6 months ago

If pursuing your own vision is the sole purpose intended, it would not be limited at all.