this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2024
132 points (100.0% liked)

Free and Open Source Software

17957 readers
142 users here now

If it's free and open source and it's also software, it can be discussed here. Subcommunity of Technology.

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Gaywallet@beehaw.org
alyaza@beehaw.org
132
Ladybird web browser now funded by GitHub co-founder, promises ‘no code’ from rivals (devclass.com)
submitted 4 months ago by Recant@beehaw.org to c/foss@beehaw.org
161 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Lionir@beehaw.org 12 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Sometimes terrible people can do good things. Those good things should be supported. Judge a project on it own merits.

The thing here is that Ladybird and SerenityOS are both the community and the code. One cannot live without the other because the code will always need its community to develop it. And in this case, it is not possible to support them without supporting the people who, y'know receive the money. I think nobody is arguing against an independent browser engine - the argument is against the implementation of it.

[–] Steve@communick.news 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It sounds like you're arguing that bad people shouldn't be paid to anything good.

[–] Lionir@beehaw.org 17 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I don't support bad people. Those bad people can change and become good people. Until then, why would I support and pay those that hurt my friends?

[–] Steve@communick.news 2 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Do you think they'd stop being bad people if they couldn't make an honest living? Would it be better or worse if they were on the street? Do you think they might resort to criminality also?

Do you feel better knowing they aren't getting your money? Even at the cost of them ever doing anything good for anyone?

[–] rimu@piefed.social 7 points 4 months ago (1 children)

This is known as a "false dichotomy" and is very lame.

[–] Steve@communick.news 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Is it?
Are you saying you would support bad people under the right circumstances?

[–] rimu@piefed.social 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] Steve@communick.news 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

I'm fully aware, and disagree.
Someone else called it a Slippery Slope. That's closer, but still not quite right.
It's actually Reductio ad Absurdum.
Which is a useful thought exorcise when analyzing many ideas.

[–] Lionir@beehaw.org 4 points 4 months ago

Do you think they’d stop being bad people if they couldn’t make an honest living? Would it be better or worse if they were on the street? Do you think they might resort to criminality also?

I don't think anyone deserves living in the street. I don't think they will stop being bad people whether or not I support them. It seems you're trying to move the goal post.

Do you feel better knowing they aren’t getting your money? Even at the cost of them ever doing anything good for anyone?

I feel better that they aren't getting my money because they cannot be empowered to hurt the people I care about. I think they can do good things without my support. This seems like a weird thing to say.

Also, this is clearly sealioning. It's really not a good way to make conversation.