> I started open source programming in the late 90s and was quite > idealistic about the whole idea, contributing to other projects > and starting my own project (Pinger). > > In the last few months I've gotten quite cynical. I don't see the > sense of community, cooperation, and selfless assistance I used to > see. Now I see a great deal of "it should be different" but no actual > code to support the "should". Or "it should run on X" with no actual > code to support the "should" (hyperdoc? graphics? sman? clef?). Or "it > should be licensed thus" with no thought of the great deal of effort > freely given under the current license. Or "it should be windows > based" with no effort to try to actually make it run. Or it has a bug > with no effort to find/fix/test/diff/patch the bug. Or "it should > .... " fill in whatever anyone has an opinion about what "it should > do" or how "it should be". > > I remember a time when open source was characterized as a group of > people who "scratched their own itch", that is, they wrote CODE that > make the world look like "it should". I remember a time when open > source was characterized by people who freely gave away code so that > others could benefit without restriction because it was the right > thing to do. They used the code, they fixed or extended the code, and > they sent the changes back, a very small part of a much larger whole. > > I have wasted a year debating. I have wasted a year listening to > people say what it should do. I have wasted a year trying to explain > to people that this is open source and there are certain norms about > how to contribute code and documentation. I have been posting > diff-Naur patches to try to show how contributions are done. I have > lost patience with people who say "this is nice but..." or "it should > do this" or "make it work the way *I* want it to work" or "graphics > should run on windows" or "this isn't windows so it is archaic" or > whatever the complaint is. > > Opinions about what "it should do" are worthless. No code, no sympathy. > Download the code, scratch your itch, test it, document it, diff it, > and post it. I've done that with projects, had patches rejected (e.g. noweb) > and accepted (aldor tutorial typos, presumably). But I made the effort. > > Students need to find their own motivation. Either the itch is great > enough and the student good enough to scratch it or not. Asking for > help in fixing/extending/documenting is well supported. I just built > a whole Suse 10.2 system and an axiom image to debug a problem. But > the person with the problem ACTUALLY TRIED to do something. > > I'd have been much more sympathetic if the student sent in a patch to > make )help start hyperdoc on windows. I don't recall seeing a patch. > The student has the source, the student has the time, the student has > the opinion, the student has the itch. I await the patch. > > Tim, the newly cynical curmudgeon.
I understand your annoyance with a behavior of someone just criticizing without doing anything. Nevertheless, I myself just ask a question - why am I doing the opensource project? My answer is, because I want people to use it. Thus being able to know how the majority of people would like to use my project is crucial. I have no problems with someone just stating what he expected, or what he was annoyed about. The "send a patch or shut up" attitude is perfectly legitimate, but I think there are also other attitudes that can help the project more. For example, you can come to the SymPy mailinglist and say whatever you want, more criticisms, the better. I think it's very important for new users of any software to experience a pleasant surprise, not to be annoyed. With the "send a patch or shut up" attitude, you will never know, what exactly your users don't like on it. Ondrej _______________________________________________ Axiom-developer mailing list Axiom-developer@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer
