| I’d think the lesson here is obvious, but maybe not. If you thought this project had value, you could’ve contributed to it. You probably still could. Or, if you think its value is worth $0 (to you), maybe it’s not really that sad (to you). People are expressing sadness as if there was nothing to be done about it, but, of course, there’s a really straight-forward thing that could’ve been done about it (possibly still could). |
| |
| ▲ | piva00 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | That is exactly gatekeeping, no? You are only entitled to feel sad if you contributed effort or financially, otherwise you aren't allowed to feel. Why can't others that just used the tool feel sad? It is supposed to be used, it's the whole reason for it to exist; not everyone using it will have technical expertise or money to contribute to it, feeling sad about it when it solved issues for someone is a completely normal response. | | |
| ▲ | AndyNemmity 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | The reason for something to exist is not to be used. He was paid while doing it, and that pay stopped, and he kept doing it. Now he wishes to stop. The reason for something to exist is someone finds joy doing it. Especially when they are unpaid. The sadness should be focused on his inability to support himself with a tool that clearly a lot of companies, and people are using and gaining value for. | | |
| ▲ | piva00 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | The reason for a tool to exist is to be used, even if it's just by a singular person, other projects that aren't tools do definitely fit into the criteria "just for the joy of it" but a tool, by definition, has at least one usage, and building a tool gives someone joy from the tool being useful. The sadness doesn't need to be focused anywhere, you can feel sad for more than one thing at a time. People can be sad that a tool they think is great, have relied on, and has been important for their use case is going away while also be sad that such a great tool doesn't get enough support from companies. Both can be true, no need to control what people can or should feel. |
|
| |
| ▲ | electroly 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | They're right. This is over the top. Your initial post in this thread was sensible (telling the users of Pgbackrest that they should have supported it if they didn't want this to happen, and saying nothing about what emotions are valid to have), but you took it much further here. People should financially support the OSS projects they use, and the lack of such support is why this project is no longer maintained, but claiming people aren't allowed to feel anything about it is just playing a game that isn't helping the cause. We all know this problem, and being sad while having not supported the project isn't a statement that we disagree that the problem exists. It's a big stretch to assume that it is. I've never heard of this project before and I still think it's a bummer that a tool people liked and that the maintainer cared about was unable to find backing. I was never going to support it; I just heard of it for the first time today and I don't use it! I'm still sad. We're not robots here. We're fellow developers, and we know it's tough out there. | |
| ▲ | Aurornis 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Those that paid, or did any kind of contributions upstream are entitled to be sad. I didn’t even use pgbackrest but I’m still sad to see this. I should have checked the comments first to determine my eligibility to be sad about this issue, before I had feelings that upset the sadness gatekeepers. |
|
