If IBM wants backward compatibility they should pay for it. They're coasting on your work.
What's in a name? Who cares? Time to move on despite the risks. I'm willing to pay for AFS as long as I have access to sources under NDA, license or whatever. Ted On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 10:49 PM, Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote: > Troy Benjegerdes <ho...@hozed.org> writes: > > > So here's a general question for the list: Would you rather see OpenAFS > > end with a bang because the community imploded, or with a whimper when > > all the AFS admins that have been carrying the torch retire and the new > > CIO moves everyone to iCloud or google drive? > > Given those choices (which represent a false dichotomy, but fine, let's > have this argument anyway), a whimper, because being nasty to other people > is simply not okay, makes the world a worse place all around, and almost > never actually helps. > > One of the deep flaws in the open source community at large right now, > seen in all sorts of different projects, is that it has rather a large > share of technically-competent abrasive assholes who really *like* being > assholes and don't want to change, and who have therefore invented a > marvellous little story that they tell themselves about how their behavior > is actually courageous truthtelling, brutal honesty, a refusal to "settle > for the status quo," or otherwise part of why they're able to accomplish > so much good work. It's all bullshit. They're just technically-competent > people who also happen to be assholes. > > The actual reason why so much open source work is done by such people is > not because they're better at it. It's because they drive off everyone > who doesn't "have thick skin" or "enjoys robust exchanges of views" or > whatever today's euphemism is for tolerating abusive behavior, and then > use the fact that all surviving project members interact like they do as > proof that their social behavior is acceptable. It's a self-selecting, > self-perpetuating ecosystem that I'm increasingly uninterested in > tolerating. > > It's also not actually productive. There are more technically-competent > people in the world who like supportive, cooperative projects with > functional, adult social expectations than people who thrive on abrasive > conflict. If one stops tolerating abusive people, one often finds all > sorts of people contributing who otherwise would take one look at the > prevailing tone and just quietly walk away. Everyone is abrasive > sometimes, but most people *try* not to be and apologize when they slip, > and those are the kind of people I want to work with. It's also the kind > of person that I want to be, and one starts to emulate the people one > interacts with, for good or for ill. There are lots of places I could > spend my time productively; the nature of the community is a primary > selection criteria. (I could also go off on an extended discussion of how > this particular pattern is deeply entangled with the gender bias in open > source, but I'll spare you.) > > Besides, whether one attracts more developers that way or not, it's simply > the right thing to do, at a level that's considerably more important than > whether AFS survives as a technology or not. > > -- > Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> > _______________________________________________ > OpenAFS-info mailing list > OpenAFS-info@openafs.org > https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info >
