When you're talking to an open source dev, just remember that they are literally giving you their time for free, and they are people who don't like to be treated poorly.
Edit: Just to be clear, I don’t mean any ill will toward the guy. He’s frustrated and he’s just taking it out in the wrong venue at the wrong people, but that doesn’t mean he’s a bad person.
Edit 2: The reinstalling he’s talking about is NPM. So just running npm install. It’s because he tried removing the node_modules directory, which is a reasonable thing to do, but it means you need to reinstall the modules with that command.
It depends on if the first guy is complaining about having to reinstall this specific software, or if the software borked his entire system to the point that he has to reinstall his entire OS. Because that happened to me once. But in the first scenario he is being a dick, and in the second one not so much.
In this case, in trying to resolve the issue, he deleted his
node_modulesdirectory. So he’s talking about having to reinstall everything by typingnpm installand waiting for it to finish.oh man..
People can be such dicks, you have my sympathy.
I’ve been thinking about open sourcing a Node project of mine recently.. concerning that this is the kind of thing to expect
Well, this isn’t usual. This is actually really rare. Almost all of the interactions I have with users of my libraries are great. People are generally appreciative and kind, or at least not rude. This is an outlier, and I try not to let these things sour my experience.
He’s frustrated and he’s being abrasive because of that, but that doesn’t make him a bad person. I try to respond without being rude back, but just stern. Usually when you do that, people will either not respond again or apologize. I’ve never had a user keep being rude, and if I did, I would just ban them.
Sometimes people just kinda forget that on the internet they’re still talking to other real people, you know?
You're lucky. I left FOSS dev because I got tired of my free time being abused by people like the one in your post
I've had to adopt a two strikes policy towards these aggressive trolls, who treat you like your their personal servant, especially since they make up like <1% of ppl on issue trackers. After a warning, if they don't play nice, then they're out.
It's the only way to keep the coding experience enjoyable, and not suffer from burnout.
Wait till they realize that's literally the solution to a lot of Node related issues. It's in its own folder for a reason.
I disagree, in neither scenario the open source dev owes him anything. You get to use and modify the software for free, but the flip side is you are entitled to nothing.
Malware is free too
Malware is not usually open source.
@appel@lemmy.ml not open source is usually malware
You are entitled to the truth. If the dev knows their software could have very damaging effects then that should be front and center on the software page.
Usually it is? But ultimately it's still your own responsibility. You did not pay the dev, the dev does not ask you to pay them, ergo the dev owes you diddly squad.
Let's be decent with each other, I don't think my expectations are outrageous. I consider decent to make sure that the person that will use your software is aware of the dangers. And the best person to know those dangers is usually the dev.
You're not entitled to a working computer once you execute a free program?
Honestly, no. It's your job to vet the software you run. If it's open source, you had every chance to make sure it wasn't going to irreversibly break your system ahead of time.
Alternatively, you could pay money for a solution from a reputable company with support.
You're implying that to even install the simplest of programs, I'd need to read and understannd many thousands of lines of code, starting with the FOSS project itself and then spidering out to every dependency. This speaks nothing of the fact that it may be written in multiple languages, some of which I am not familiar with, and even if I am, code can be written in ways that's almost impossible to understand. This might take a week for a 200 line project.
Reminds me of when my employer said they were going to stop using open source software until a team had vetted it completely. Lol, once they talked to engineers that idea died immediately.
This. I swear, some people in the FOSS community seem to be convinced everyone who uses a computer is a developer.
Right? And it seems like no one is interested in understanding my point, most only seem interested in defending developers of FOSS. I understand there is no legal obligation from FOSS devs... That is irrelevant.
I love FOSS. It's one of the best products of humanity. I am not attacking devs at all...
My point was only that while devs don't owe anyone anything legally, if the rare edge case happens where their code is destructive by accident, it would be a dick move to ignore complaints about it. I guess because it didn't spell it all out like this, I "deserved" all the downvotes (on since-deleted comments) and condescending remarks?
Yes I know that if I use Firefox I can't sue them if somehow they wipe my OS. Yes I know that would probably never happen, it's extremely unlikely to happen. But if it did, FF owes us at least a response. And I means owes in the sense that it's the right thing to do, not "if you don't do it I can sue you".
That's absolutely a ridiculous stance. Yes, you can personally go through everything, but there's also searching around to find out what other people say about it, actually look through the issues people have raised. Some of it applies to proprietary software as well, find out what other people say about the software. You don't need to do everything yourself, but you do have to take responsibility for trying to make sure it will work as you hope it will.
Whoosh
I can see how you got there, but I'm actually not saying you need to understand any programming languages at all. If the code is out there, and the product is worthwhile, the community can and will vet it.
Like I responded to the other guy, you put a level of trust in anything you use. You can pay for a product and expect polish and support, or you can go the open source route, the DIY hobbyist route, and expect to have to do more yourself. You might have to do research on a product before you trust it. This isn't a radical concept to me. If I was putting together an RC car, I would do research on the motor to make sure it was unlikely to fail catastrophically.
Who put the gun to your head and made you run the software though?
The response to this here is absolutely wild. I guess I should expect my machine to get wiped any moment
Whenever you choose to run a program that has full access to parts of your PC that may cause issues, you are the person who chose to do so.
Just run apps in a sandbox if you don't want to risk having to reinstall your OS in a worst case scenario.
The developer owes you nothing.
Legal obligations that I grasped at age 9 don't really interest me to talk about. It's pretty obvious I understand them. What I was trying to talk about was what reasonable people should do. But apparently that's offensive to many ITT as most responses are condescending af
We might be condescending due to braindead users like this:
Despite grasping legal obligations at the age of 9, taking responsibility for your own actions seems to still be a struggle. Good luck.
You're right to an extent, but there is nuance. No end user goes through the Debian repositories and checking the source code for each package by hand. You would be well within your rights to be annoyed if a
rm -rf /got added into a script in the repos somehow. A level of trust somewhere is unavoidable for things to work smoothly.Of course the difference in level of responsibility between core repos and random code pulled of github is vast.
The extent to which you're attempting to sound intelligent would be saddening if you weren't being so rude. I won't be replying to you in the future.
and run the possibly even greater risk that it'll fuck something up, since you probably can't even look at their source
??? You quoted my comment with 'reputable' in it. You put a level of trust in anything you use. Reputable companies are unlikely to fuck your shit up with bad software. It happens - not trying to say it doesn't - but again, you have to trust somewhere.
If that's what you get from a paid product, why would you assume it's better for a free product?
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
The software is almost certainly provided as is, with risks assumed by the person installing it.
Still, I doubt any dev wants a catastrophic outcome and takes steps to avoid that or warn the end user if the code is more likely to bork something.
I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the dev to do their best but it's also not like you can sue them and win, most likely.
I guess you are not entitled free support once you execute a free program
No. It's provided without warranty nor guarantee that it'll work or even leave your system intact. That's the core of most opensource licenses. Dev owes nobody nothing.
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
I didn't say anyone owed anyone anything. I was saying one level of frustration was understandable, one was not. Anyhow, my case happened twenty years ago when creative commons barely existed.
Then you're right. The frustration would be understandable, the expression thereof towards the developer, not.
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
what's with the link in every comment? just curious
It's a non-commercial copyleft licence for the comment in case the case against Microsoft's CoPilot is won.
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
I don't quite understand, why would Microsoft sue you for a lemmy comment?
Just to be sure, is this a serious question or a troll?
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
serious question... not everyone on Lemmy is a computer expert, lol
🙂 my bad
No, not sue me for lemmy comments. AI is trained with lots of data. The world wide web is full of publicly accessible data like our comments. However, not all publicly accessible data may be used without a license. Examples thereof are news paper articles, videos, still pictures, etc. Normally, if you want to use those commercially, consent has to be given by the license holder and a in some cases a fee has to be paid.
Microsoft Copilot is an AI model to help people write code. However, it was trained mostly on opensource code (code made publicly available) which was very often licensed. And it is done so in such a manner that commercial use is allowed with the obligation to make that commercial code publicly available too. Microsoft does not make the code for Copilot publicly accessible and uses code licensed in many, many other ways - and it does so without asking for consent.
This is often a double standard as companies that hide their code fight very hard to keep it secret and/or pursue those in court who do not get a license to use it. However, they will happily use licensed consent to their benefit without consent nor potential payment.
With some clever tricks, AIs have been duped into revealing their training data (often licensed, sometimes very private e.g addresses, birthday, health information, etc.). Lawsuits have ensued (against the AI owners like Microsoft) and are currently active with a pending verdict. Until the verdicts come, I add the license link to my comments. Who knows, maybe it will have an impact, maybe not.
Hopefully I could explain the situation in an understandable manner for you.
Have a good day.
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
I see - thanks for taking the time to explain the backstory, very interesting.
You're welcome. Thank you for reading :)