Post
forum
Worst programming communities?
posted
Total Posts
15
Topic Starter
personally the github for pissandshit the software is very toxic tbh
Either webdevs or the FOSS sect.
Webdevs don't know what they're doing, just look at all the frameworks and npm shit. They actively make websites worse and brag about it.
FOSS "advocates" act like a sect and mostly just don't want to pay for stuff. The only one I've seen IRL was like that and I remember seeing a reddit post about how VLC (among others) remains free and without ads and never got sold to big companies despite ample opportunities. The most upvoted comments were basically "I don't know how they do it, I love FOSS but if I developed something that people actually used I couldn't resist monetising it as much as possible".
Sure there are some who genuinely want things to be free and open source (VLC is a good example) but they're a tiny minority even among those who claim to like FOSS.
Webdevs don't know what they're doing, just look at all the frameworks and npm shit. They actively make websites worse and brag about it.
FOSS "advocates" act like a sect and mostly just don't want to pay for stuff. The only one I've seen IRL was like that and I remember seeing a reddit post about how VLC (among others) remains free and without ads and never got sold to big companies despite ample opportunities. The most upvoted comments were basically "I don't know how they do it, I love FOSS but if I developed something that people actually used I couldn't resist monetising it as much as possible".
Sure there are some who genuinely want things to be free and open source (VLC is a good example) but they're a tiny minority even among those who claim to like FOSS.
Topic Starter
I've heard bad things about Stack Overflow, what's wrong with it?
A lot of elitism basicallyBluePyTheDeer_ wrote:
I've heard bad things about Stack Overflow, what's wrong with it?
Ellitism, some members rather shitting on your coding skills and redirecting you to the documentation or Somewhere else instead of answering your questionBluePyTheDeer_ wrote:
I've heard bad things about Stack Overflow, what's wrong with it?
At its core, the idea is noble, but considering that one of the founding fathers is someone who sometimes very clearly demonstrates how much of an ass he is, I can see why you would say that.Karmine wrote:
FOSS "advocates" act like a sect and mostly just don't want to pay for stuff. The only one I've seen IRL was like that and I remember seeing a reddit post about how VLC (among others) remains free and without ads and never got sold to big companies despite ample opportunities. The most upvoted comments were basically "I don't know how they do it, I love FOSS but if I developed something that people actually used I couldn't resist monetising it as much as possible".
Sure there are some who genuinely want things to be free and open source (VLC is a good example) but they're a tiny minority even among those who claim to like FOSS.
Yeah the idea is good, and it sucks that some of the most popular guys in these circles are complete assholes, but from my experience they're not exceptions, they're the norm.Winnyace wrote:
At its core, the idea is noble, but considering that one of the founding fathers is someone who sometimes very clearly demonstrates how much of an ass he is, I can see why you would say that.Karmine wrote:
FOSS "advocates" act like a sect and mostly just don't want to pay for stuff. The only one I've seen IRL was like that and I remember seeing a reddit post about how VLC (among others) remains free and without ads and never got sold to big companies despite ample opportunities. The most upvoted comments were basically "I don't know how they do it, I love FOSS but if I developed something that people actually used I couldn't resist monetising it as much as possible".
Sure there are some who genuinely want things to be free and open source (VLC is a good example) but they're a tiny minority even among those who claim to like FOSS.
That seems like a bit farfetched. And the free in free software is about freedom than free potatoes; it doesn't have to free in the monetary sense.Karmine wrote:
Yeah the idea is good, and it sucks that some of the most popular guys in these circles are complete assholes, but from my experience they're not exceptions, they're the norm.
How is it far fetched?Utsushime wrote:
That seems like a bit farfetched. And the free in free software is about freedom than free potatoes; it doesn't have to free in the monetary sense.Karmine wrote:
Yeah the idea is good, and it sucks that some of the most popular guys in these circles are complete assholes, but from my experience they're not exceptions, they're the norm.
Most if not all "free" and open source software is free to use. Some have side stuff being paid though (plugins, integration, support...).
I know there's the case of Ardour which is open source but not free. You can compile it from the source but there is no free pre-compiled download for free. You have to pay for it.Karmine wrote:
How is it far fetched?Utsushime wrote:
That seems like a bit farfetched. And the free in free software is about freedom than free potatoes; it doesn't have to free in the monetary sense.Karmine wrote:
Yeah the idea is good, and it sucks that some of the most popular guys in these circles are complete assholes, but from my experience they're not exceptions, they're the norm.
Most if not all "free" and open source software is free to use. Some have side stuff being paid though (plugins, integration, support...).
Your reply doesn't address what Karmine said. I hope Karmine knows what the free software movement states for.Utsushime wrote:
That seems like a bit farfetched. And the free in free software is about freedom than free potatoes; it doesn't have to free in the monetary sense.Karmine wrote:
Yeah the idea is good, and it sucks that some of the most popular guys in these circles are complete assholes, but from my experience they're not exceptions, they're the norm.
The GPL, to my knowledge, allows the developers of the software to sell what they made, it's just that alongside the software, you provide the source code as well and anybody can re-use, with the caveat that every change done to the source code must be publicly available.Karmine wrote:
How is it far fetched?
Most if not all "free" and open source software is free to use. Some have side stuff being paid though (plugins, integration, support...).
You're right, though. Most FOSS software is free to use and free to roam around inside the source code. There are exceptions, mostly coming from big tech FOSS software, as they use more business orientated licenses that make selling the software easier.
Ever community sucks massive dick, but tech communties suck the most massive dicks.
I don't know how your experience with FOSS has been, and I'm sorry if it has been bad. But I'm not in favor of calling douchebags the norm rather than the exception, and this is applicable to any community.Karmine wrote:
How is it far fetched?
Most if not all "free" and open source software is free to use. Some have side stuff being paid though (plugins, integration, support...).
From the developer side, open source, to put it bluntly, is unrewarding. They'd make significantly more if the same software was closed source—that is, if they made a dime at all—and I know Peppy certainly would. Anyone in position would say that maintaining even a small project is hard, not to mention the countless libraries people are thanklessly maintaining free of charge.
From the consumer's point of view, the open-source alternative often has fewer features than the closed-source alternative. There is no real reason to switch Firefox from the default browser that came preinstalled with the system, using an os that doesn't let you pirate, use F-Droid, or, much less, donate to a free software. Which is to say, I don't agree with the claim that people use free software solely because they are free. Further, I'd like to at least believe most people are thankful for the work Devs put in.
Again, it is not sunshine and rainbows, and what you said is valid, although I don't necessarily agree with the level. And, uh, people like Stallman are widely criticized.
About the money thing, the software is free, but oftentimes the service isn't. Even for software that is completely free, you have to support them via donations. Regardless, if you don't, someone has to.
Yeah Licenses are a mess, I think that's why MIT is so prevalent now, it's simple and one of the most permissive.Winnyace wrote:
Your reply doesn't address what Karmine said. I hope Karmine knows what the free software movement states for.Utsushime wrote:
That seems like a bit farfetched. And the free in free software is about freedom than free potatoes; it doesn't have to free in the monetary sense.Karmine wrote:
Yeah the idea is good, and it sucks that some of the most popular guys in these circles are complete assholes, but from my experience they're not exceptions, they're the norm.Karmine wrote:
How is it far fetched?
Most if not all "free" and open source software is free to use. Some have side stuff being paid though (plugins, integration, support...).
The GPL, to my knowledge, allows the developers of the software to sell what they made, it's just that alongside the software, you provide the source code as well and anybody can re-use, with the caveat that every change done to the source code must be publicly available.
You're right, though. Most FOSS software is free to use and free to roam around inside the source code. There are exceptions, mostly coming from big tech FOSS software, as they use more business orientated licenses that make selling the software easier.
I'm talking about those who are active in online communities like forums and stuff, not people who simply use/support from the shadow.Utsushime wrote:
I don't know how your experience with FOSS has been, and I'm sorry if it has been bad. But I'm not in favor of calling douchebags the norm rather than the exception, and this is applicable to any community.Karmine wrote:
How is it far fetched?
Most if not all "free" and open source software is free to use. Some have side stuff being paid though (plugins, integration, support...).
From the developer side, open source, to put it bluntly, is unrewarding. They'd make significantly more if the same software was closed source—that is, if they made a dime at all—and I know Peppy certainly would. Anyone in position would say that maintaining even a small project is hard, not to mention the countless libraries people are thanklessly maintaining free of charge.
From the consumer's point of view, the open-source alternative often has fewer features than the closed-source alternative. There is no real reason to switch Firefox from the default browser that came preinstalled with the system, using an os that doesn't let you pirate, use F-Droid, or, much less, donate to a free software. Which is to say, I don't agree with the claim that people use free software solely because they are free. Further, I'd like to at least believe most people are thankful for the work Devs put in.
Again, it is not sunshine and rainbows, and what you said is valid, although I don't necessarily agree with the level. And, uh, people like Stallman are widely criticized.
About the money thing, the software is free, but oftentimes the service isn't. Even for software that is completely free, you have to support them via donations. Regardless, if you don't, someone has to.
Also unfortunately if people were more supportive (especially the ones who spend their time talking about it online) open source projects wouldn't struggle as much with financing. The biggest ones are mostly financed by big companies because they depend on them (when they're not the original dev). Having paid services on the side is often a way to compensate for the lack of donations.
And yeah contributing/maintaining open source projects is hard and thankless, that's why most people just don't do it and even some widely used projects struggle to find contributors.