Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2016 Archives by date, by thread · List index


Well then if you are going to respond like that, I am going to respond in public.


Joel Madero schreef op 01-06-2016 18:13:
I use LibreOffice daily for professional work - your subjective feelings
are irrelevant in this outside of imposing a common sense "duty" (as a
member of the open source world) to report whatever issues you have in a
polite way and then wait patiently for the people with the skills that
you don't have to fix the problems that they confirm. Tens of millions
of users are using the product daily for professional quality work -
you're in the minority.


I wrote a message to Joel Madero in private because I didn't see it fit to write anything more philosophical about the nature of open source development on this list.

I did mention to him that people like him could be held liable in the end for acts they have committed, or didn't commit, such as false advertizing, which this product is doing, like so many others, even if there is not a form of direct contractual agreement in monetary terms, or anything like it, at the present date, the way this system is constructed.

"No warranty" doesn't hold much water in a court of law if it actually violates common principles.

And I hope you do realize, that all of you, developers or not, could be held liable for the work you do, and false advertizing you are a part of, if the false promises you make on websites such as that of this product, come down to costing people a lot of time and money, because you make promises you do not actually live up to.

And I stated these things because a form of reward is often implied in using as well as creating open source products, and "no monetary gain" is not a reality. People do this work and often get rewarded in other forms, often as a form of investment or finding employment later down the line. And I stated that everyone who is using open source material is investing in the future, and the contract is often that something may be free for now, but will yield rewards later down the line, or will even require payment later down the line, because anyone who has made a lot of money based on something free, will feel like paying back on that.

So I feel this "no responsibility" claim is just nonsense to begin with. That is not how life works, and it is not how people work.

If you put something out into the world, then accept responsibility for it. And this is just common sense, but open source people often try to reinvent common sense, and think they can do better than anyone, because in some way they are distancing themselves from corporate people, so they must be superior.

"No liability" or "no warranty" is going to not work out in the end, and you are going to get hurt for it. And this is a promise as well, because you are hurting yourself, and no one else.

Moreover, stating that in some way people (such as me) must be a good 'sheep' and are required to speak politely (as if speaking to superiors) and then "patiently wait" (as if open source is not about active involvement) until others who "do have the skills" see fit to spend their valuable time on issues that they confirm at their sole discretion, basically without anyone else having a say, but moreover, without any requirement to even /listen/ to anyone else outside of their scope, including, basically, all users, I can only currently qualify as extremely arrogant, and downright oppressive. And I feel this user only made these statements because it was done in private, whereas I didn't write my message with privacy in mind.

If that is the picture you want to paint of yourself, fine, but then I am not a part of that, or I am not a part of you.

Moreover, this arrogance mostly results also, of his incorrect assumption that I am not a developer myself, and his condescending tone only results at this point from thinking I have no code development skills in the first place. "Wait until people who do have some skills to see fit to maybe maybe maybe design the feature you want".

"You small man" you might add, and that would then apply to me. Belittling users who have no coding skills in this fashion.... and completely wrong in the first place, as it may be. Oh, you might say, then why don't you say so! You might work for us! Suddenly the tone changes and instead of filing bug reports (however mundane) I would now be required to do that work myself, right?

Free work!!

Oops. Yes, as a user I might be thankful on my knees that these great developers have even seen fit to create the product in the first place, and that I, as an insignificant being, am even allowed to use it, in the first place.

Treated as some kind of worm, or some lowly being.

"Your subjective feelings are irrelevant". Really. What if those subjective feelings might in the end come down to work opportunity and employment opportunity being lost for you, yourself? You are taking a big gamble here man.

Maybe the small fly ends up being something bigger than that.

Funny, some people in positions of authority or power often pose as small people to elicit responses like that. I don't know of many that do. A Bishop in the united states, once attended his own Christmas sermon dressed up as a beggar. After most of those good faith Christians had tried to shoo him out of his own Christmas church, he doffed his attire and proceeded to say that he didn't mean to shame them, but all the same it should provide a lesson as to how people are often judged by appearances, and that perhaps it should not be a right thing to do. Unrelated here, but some C.E.O.'s do the same, I'm sure.

This person says "feel free to report a bug" after saying that no one is going to listen to it anyway.

Since these are just "subjective feelings" anyway, and "millions of users" that you never asked never complained about it to your knowledge.

The question of whether something /should/ work in a certain way, is apparently not important.

And yes, people get fired for such things. However much you may disagree with that, for instance, an employee for the Linux Foundation was pretty much fired after publicly attacking the proposals of a member (or sponsor) organisation. So I would say to watch your words, and do not assume you can know whom you are talking to, or whether something will not bite you in the end.

A more sane and polite approach, yourself, might be advisable. Try to act in a way in which you will never need to apologize, even if you turn out to have been wrong. Try to assume best intents, and try to assume knowledge on the part of the other. Also try to assume competence, in the beginning. Try to assume that what someone is saying, might actually have some merit. You might come much farther in life, if you do so.

And don't risk getting burned for some arrogance popping out in case no one else can hear it, you think, or it is being said to someone who doesn't matter anyway.

And my name, it doesn't matter, but you can find out easily.

And I am someone of complete insignificance, after all.

Or, as dr. Evil liked to say, "The details of my life are inconsequential".

;-).

Regards, B.

--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscribe@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Context


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.