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
Yes, I don’t agree with the whole “separate the art from the artist” thing. It might be wrong but I don’t care. If someone is openly rude and abusive to their users, publicly, for years on end with no remorse (cough Linus Torvalds), it just turns me off to the entire project.
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.
@[email protected]
@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected]
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? Cars too?
Yes, I don’t agree with the whole “separate the art from the artist” thing. It might be wrong but I don’t care. If someone is openly rude and abusive to their users, publicly, for years on end with no remorse (cough Linus Torvalds), it just turns me off to the entire project.