It is just disappointing. But people forget that there are many FOSS projects that we widely use where the developers have shitty ignorant opinions. Maybe peoples uproar is directly related to the refusal to merge a simple grammar change, which seems very anti-open source. Or maybe that the Dev has a code of conduct that speaks about inclusivity which they weaponized to justify not merging, as to be “politically-inclusive” (aka some people dont believe that “they” can be used for one person lmao). It just feels like they are choosing a weird hill to die on and also being a hypocrite by being so intentional obtuse, and of course the devs abrasive and accusatory method of responding on multiple occasions.
I think it is harder to separate the Dev from their creation when it relates to open source. It really is a passion of the heart a lot of the time. But that doesn’t make the tech any less interesting.
I see your argument and I agree, but I just believe that with these talented/intelligent/passionate (valuable imo) people it’s better to dedicate their limited valuable time to things they exceed at, not time for them to “correct” their sometimes ignorant opinions. We can ignore their ignorance, we can’t replace their value.
When getting people to “correct” their opinions, my opinion is that they’re far more likely to learn to mask their opinions, having to be constantly conscious of how others will respond to what they’re saying and reducing their work throughput in the process.
It can only be corrected if the person actually starts believing that the “correct” idea is actually correct. That’s way harder than for them to simply pretend like they believe the “correct” idea, which they’ll obviously do first. Isn’t that a waste of time?
I like that Firefox exists and I use it and its forks but I really doubt that the aging gecko engine could be made competitive with chromium anytime soon enough to claw back market share to stop google doing shit like web environment integrity. Mozilla stopped work on Servo and they’re also kinda sus in terms of how they seem to be fine with receiving funding from google.
i don’t get why sane people would rather a person with good opinions over a free independent web browser, the latter just seems so much more valuable to me.
This is sorta a hornets nest. On the one hand I get that when it comes to tech who cares about the persons personal life but on the other hand when it comes to free software there is a concern over the orgs or individuals that run them given the trust involved. Yes you can rely on the many eyes but you want to be confident of the org (or individual) to begin with.
So you think you can draw a connection between someone’s views on inclusive language and whether an individual or org can be trusted with software security.
I’m sorry but to me this line of thinking is bonkers. The two things have nothing to do with each other whatsoever. What if a conservative individual argued that they have trust issues with an open source project because it features inclusive language now? The person might argue that they don’t understand why devs would devote their limited time to such cosmetics instead of focusing on code quality. How would you view this argument? On Lemmy it would probably be ridiculed, and rightfully so. Yet it’s the same line of thinking that I see if I interpreted your comment correctly.
Look, the dev is a reactionary. He lists that the browser is unstable and intended for devs. So IF I were to use it, that would mean reporting issues and/or fixing issues myself. I’m not interested in working with a reactionary. So I will not be using this browser. You’re welcome to use the browser if you want. At this time, I’m not interested.
Sure everyone’s free to use it or not, contribute to it or not. That’s not related to my argument. I was only talking about making a connection between someone’s political views and how much trust they deserve when it comes to e.g. security.
Thats because you don’t view it as a moral failing. How would racist language rank. What about nazi stuff. I mean none of that technically effects trustworthiness for running an org. Well ah. unless your the particular thing.
interesting idea, I guess maybe we just think like that in selfishness? (idk if selfish is the right word here) if someone was to become the lead dev of a project like this and they were extremely hateful of my culture in particular or something, i’d prolly not want that guy to be the lead dev, but if they’re not doing any harm i guess that’s just my selfishness wanting them to reflect my views so my views get more recognised in society through the platform that they’ve earned? (though that’d be quite justified)
overall though if that person wasn’t causing actual harm, just publicly having that view there’s no harm done and it’d be the most resource efficient to just let that person be. i’d probably complain but that’s probably because we evolved to prioritise our own interests above that of society as a whole.
though we all live in democracies and developers of foss projects shouldn’t have to be where we gain our political voice, but I guess we just aren’t there yet.
Yes but not using inclusive language is far from counting as a moral failing in my world… It’s far from racism, let alone nazi stuff. So what’s that comparison good for?
well yeah but thats you. the person who had the comment starting the change feels differently. Thats sorta the point im trying to make. That its understandable it just depends on how you view that attitude. So I see some merit to why they would avoid the software if they feel that viewpoint is a moral failing.
That’s true and I’d probably not use the software myself if the dev was someone known for stealing credentials or something, but honestly I don’t really see how someone viewing the use of “they” over “he” as political propaganda could affect the browser they’re making negatively in a substantial way.
I guess you could say that there is a possibility that he’s saying that out of homophobia and when ladybird becomes as influential as google they could do some homophobic things? I really doubt that’d be allowed by governments though
Or you could be an adult and move on with your life. Shaming people for not sharing your groupthink ideology is such a strange way to spend your limited time on this earth.
I’m fine with solumbran seeing the dev’s opinions as “wrong”, I just find how they base their whole view of the project on that single small disagreement makes them seem like a shortsighted dumbass
Oh that’s not at all what they implied. They implied you shouldn’t use the project based on the author’s opinions. That’s very different from implying the author isn’t entitled to their opinions.
Boycotting the software doesn’t infringe on the author’s rights to have a shitty opinion. It’s called consequences for being an asshole.
people can have different views. you might not like them but it’s their views, not yours
Yes, they can. And I can also view their views with disdain… or even horror and choose not to support their efforts, whatever they may be.
What you are really saying here is that you to some degree don’t disagree with Kling and so it’s this particular view you find acceptable to let pass. If it were something like “people should be fine eating small children” you might react differently.
You don’t disagree with Kling enough to object. This is clearly demonstrated here.
Edit: Let me a little more clear. Kling is the one bringing politics into it. The change was simple (one word!) and technically correct. It would be like if I said “I want our new logo to be red” and you said “don’t bring politics into it” when really I just like tomatoes and sunsets.
people can have different views. you might not like them but it’s their views, not yours
I don’t like bigotry
yeah but does that affect the browser development process significantly?
there are people with differing views in this world and you need to accept that if you want to actually achieve things
I’m not saying i agree with him bc I don’t, but I wouldn’t base my opinion on the project on the small grievance i have with one dev’s opinions.
It is just disappointing. But people forget that there are many FOSS projects that we widely use where the developers have shitty ignorant opinions. Maybe peoples uproar is directly related to the refusal to merge a simple grammar change, which seems very anti-open source. Or maybe that the Dev has a code of conduct that speaks about inclusivity which they weaponized to justify not merging, as to be “politically-inclusive” (aka some people dont believe that “they” can be used for one person lmao). It just feels like they are choosing a weird hill to die on and also being a hypocrite by being so intentional obtuse, and of course the devs abrasive and accusatory method of responding on multiple occasions.
I think it is harder to separate the Dev from their creation when it relates to open source. It really is a passion of the heart a lot of the time. But that doesn’t make the tech any less interesting.
I see your argument and I agree, but I just believe that with these talented/intelligent/passionate (valuable imo) people it’s better to dedicate their limited valuable time to things they exceed at, not time for them to “correct” their sometimes ignorant opinions. We can ignore their ignorance, we can’t replace their value.
When getting people to “correct” their opinions, my opinion is that they’re far more likely to learn to mask their opinions, having to be constantly conscious of how others will respond to what they’re saying and reducing their work throughput in the process.
Poor behavior can be corrected. Ignoring bigotry and letting it slide hurts others. That’s not acceptable
It can only be corrected if the person actually starts believing that the “correct” idea is actually correct. That’s way harder than for them to simply pretend like they believe the “correct” idea, which they’ll obviously do first. Isn’t that a waste of time?
I don’t need to accept bigotry. I can just use a different browser.
have fun with google spyware ig when they finally do something like web environment integrity
Or we can just keep using firefox
I like that Firefox exists and I use it and its forks but I really doubt that the aging gecko engine could be made competitive with chromium anytime soon enough to claw back market share to stop google doing shit like web environment integrity. Mozilla stopped work on Servo and they’re also kinda sus in terms of how they seem to be fine with receiving funding from google.
And it’s my view that we are free to dunk on people with bad views.
i don’t get why sane people would rather a person with good opinions over a free independent web browser, the latter just seems so much more valuable to me.
@Jumuta@sh.itjust.works
@Gargari@lemmy.ml @Solumbran@lemmy.world @DrJenkem@lemmy.blugatch.tube
This is sorta a hornets nest. On the one hand I get that when it comes to tech who cares about the persons personal life but on the other hand when it comes to free software there is a concern over the orgs or individuals that run them given the trust involved. Yes you can rely on the many eyes but you want to be confident of the org (or individual) to begin with.
So you think you can draw a connection between someone’s views on inclusive language and whether an individual or org can be trusted with software security.
I’m sorry but to me this line of thinking is bonkers. The two things have nothing to do with each other whatsoever. What if a conservative individual argued that they have trust issues with an open source project because it features inclusive language now? The person might argue that they don’t understand why devs would devote their limited time to such cosmetics instead of focusing on code quality. How would you view this argument? On Lemmy it would probably be ridiculed, and rightfully so. Yet it’s the same line of thinking that I see if I interpreted your comment correctly.
Look, the dev is a reactionary. He lists that the browser is unstable and intended for devs. So IF I were to use it, that would mean reporting issues and/or fixing issues myself. I’m not interested in working with a reactionary. So I will not be using this browser. You’re welcome to use the browser if you want. At this time, I’m not interested.
Sure everyone’s free to use it or not, contribute to it or not. That’s not related to my argument. I was only talking about making a connection between someone’s political views and how much trust they deserve when it comes to e.g. security.
Thats because you don’t view it as a moral failing. How would racist language rank. What about nazi stuff. I mean none of that technically effects trustworthiness for running an org. Well ah. unless your the particular thing.
interesting idea, I guess maybe we just think like that in selfishness? (idk if selfish is the right word here) if someone was to become the lead dev of a project like this and they were extremely hateful of my culture in particular or something, i’d prolly not want that guy to be the lead dev, but if they’re not doing any harm i guess that’s just my selfishness wanting them to reflect my views so my views get more recognised in society through the platform that they’ve earned? (though that’d be quite justified)
overall though if that person wasn’t causing actual harm, just publicly having that view there’s no harm done and it’d be the most resource efficient to just let that person be. i’d probably complain but that’s probably because we evolved to prioritise our own interests above that of society as a whole.
though we all live in democracies and developers of foss projects shouldn’t have to be where we gain our political voice, but I guess we just aren’t there yet.
Yes but not using inclusive language is far from counting as a moral failing in my world… It’s far from racism, let alone nazi stuff. So what’s that comparison good for?
well yeah but thats you. the person who had the comment starting the change feels differently. Thats sorta the point im trying to make. That its understandable it just depends on how you view that attitude. So I see some merit to why they would avoid the software if they feel that viewpoint is a moral failing.
That’s true and I’d probably not use the software myself if the dev was someone known for stealing credentials or something, but honestly I don’t really see how someone viewing the use of “they” over “he” as political propaganda could affect the browser they’re making negatively in a substantial way.
I guess you could say that there is a possibility that he’s saying that out of homophobia and when ladybird becomes as influential as google they could do some homophobic things? I really doubt that’d be allowed by governments though
What, you only use software of honest and upstanding people?
Or you could be an adult and move on with your life. Shaming people for not sharing your groupthink ideology is such a strange way to spend your limited time on this earth.
He said with no sense of irony.
It’s almost as if there is no irony.
Did the OP say they couldn’t have different views? You must have replied to the wrong comment.
isn’t that what they implied?
I’m fine with solumbran seeing the dev’s opinions as “wrong”, I just find how they base their whole view of the project on that single small disagreement makes them seem like a shortsighted dumbass
Oh that’s not at all what they implied. They implied you shouldn’t use the project based on the author’s opinions. That’s very different from implying the author isn’t entitled to their opinions.
Boycotting the software doesn’t infringe on the author’s rights to have a shitty opinion. It’s called consequences for being an asshole.
that’s what i said??
how am i saying this? i’m saying that the guy is shortsighted for telling people to boycott the software just bc of the dev’s opinions
i’m not arguing about the arbitary rights of authors, i’m just saying that boycotting isn’t an efficient use of resources
Yes, they can. And I can also view their views with disdain… or even horror and choose not to support their efforts, whatever they may be.
What you are really saying here is that you to some degree don’t disagree with Kling and so it’s this particular view you find acceptable to let pass. If it were something like “people should be fine eating small children” you might react differently.
ok lmao ctrl f my history for “they”
You don’t disagree with Kling enough to object. This is clearly demonstrated here.
Edit: Let me a little more clear. Kling is the one bringing politics into it. The change was simple (one word!) and technically correct. It would be like if I said “I want our new logo to be red” and you said “don’t bring politics into it” when really I just like tomatoes and sunsets.