13
Floydimus
118d

Another reason to love and support Open-source, is that you can be vocal about what you believe in, what you stand for, and what you support.

All without the fear of anyone or any criticism.

Comments
  • 13
    Do you not go on the internet? Companies LOVE virtue signaling like this
  • 3
    @12bitfloat these days it has started happening more.

    I do have some screenshots of funny release notes, that I often refer to when I need to feel good about the industry.
  • 21
    I fucking hate it when software contains political messages or websites like NPM or Github have to wank out their support for BLM or other BS. Why the fuck does nowadays everything and everyone need to choose a political side?
    I just want the free and open internet back from the early 2000s.
  • 14
    This is a stupid idea. The result of this shitty virtue signalling that notepad-plus-plus.org is blocked in China so that Chinese users cannot access it.
  • 7
    @PonySlaystation and @Fast-Nop , Thank you! ++
  • 9
    It's a bit cringy IMO, and seems like it reflects the views of a single maintainer as opposed to the views of the community as a whole, which defeats the purpose.
  • 4
    @Fast-Nop I agree virtue signaling is useless. But with how china operate especially it wouldnt matter, since they useually take all kind of things especially tech related things, and makes a alternative to that product. After a couple of years they starts to harass the non chinese version of the product/company by either blocking it or siege all their ownership and gives it to the chinese counterpart.

    The "great" nation of freuad and thieveries.
  • 7
    @kamen well the maintainers can do what they like, and if that get them blocked, that might not be bad in their mind.

    Remember, as open source they usually do not get payed per copy.

    And getting banned by a country you are actively protesting against could very well be seen as a badge of honor.
  • 9
    @PonySlaystation Kinda agree, but only to the extend they starts to change standards for no purpose at all like "master to main". But thats my opinion.

    I like your view on it, because many dont really mind the polticial message behind it so long it supports their poltical side.

    Lets see how many of those people who still says they should be poltical if did say something unpopular that would lets say favor chinese poltics.
  • 7
    My opinion remains intact. This is pretencious, no matter the side.
  • 5
    yeah, don't mix work with emotion. That's what I think. Keep it clean and separate, there's plenty of other platforms specifically so you can share your unrelated offtopic general opinions, that's not what youd download page is for... at least make a separate subpage for that if you really want it on your official product, free or otherwise... This is just kinda heavy handed and pretencious...
  • 4
    There is a bunch of good things in the open source ecosystem, but activism isn’t one of them.
  • 6
    Yea for sure. You might even feel inclined to load up your open source software with some malware once people trust it or its part of a lot of dependencies and then when you get called out replace it with something else and pretend it never happened - you know, like with that node-ipc trainwreck.

    I'm honestly on the fence about it. On one hand, the devs have the right to do whatever they want as long as it's legal.

    On the other hand, I hate having a political message (even if I agree with it) forced on me especially when I'm just trying to do work which isn't politically related. I don't want to have politics rammed down my throat every day or even every update - just let me do my job in peace man
  • 3
    I can't imagine how people can deny an open source developer's right to assign their ideologies to their own project while also touting about freedom.
  • 3
    An argument can be made that software should be unopinionated, but you need to realize that this argument is authoritarian; it implies the stance that the consumer's idea of the product is more important than the worker's, and that the worker should subject their product to this order.
  • 2
    My logic is of course dependent on the assumption that demand is only relevant as far as it represents purchasing power, and on that the discussed projects aren't motivated by profit.
  • 2
    @lbfalvy I was actually considering that aspect of the argument after i had written my second comment.

    First of all its completely and a fair argument. But when it comes to discuss freedom and when its limiting certain things authoritarian or not, its a way bigger and complex discussing that really depends on the values and moral by the individual and can therefore easlity be used as an argument against anything that limits human freedom.

    But in this case i doubt anyone here wishes any governments to make it illagal so i wouldnt really call it authoritarian. But rather wishes the open sources developers would come to senses on their own and stop it.
  • 3
    @lbfalvy Freedom certainly includes also stupid shit - but that's not an argument for actually doing that.
  • 3
    @PonySlaystation I actually think peak internet was around 2010. We have the cusp of web 2.0 with lots of cool redesigns and stuff to work with but before the advertisers started using it against us and making anti-patterns like infinite scrolling.

    https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/...
  • 4
    @Fast-Nop I'd say that the second best action against regional censorship - besides spending immense effort to conceal your message and trick the censors - is creating popular content and coupling it to something that gets banned; contributing to the inferiority of the censored world.
  • 1
    Oh. I thought they got hacked so I downloaded the one that just had a version number.
  • 3
    @Fast-Nop @bioDan @kamen @Frederick @Voxera @Frederick @vintprox @Hazarth @gcavalcante8808 @crappycode @lbfalvy @arcadesdude lot of strong views here. Let me just share why I feel this is great.

    1. The objective of open source is be rebel and oppose the closed source. The fundamental concept is important, the approach can be changed. Doing it by fighting on streets or raising a voice via release notes, standing up is important.

    2. Yes, this might look cringe based on political shit that companies do during the pride and other events. However, they do it to fit in and seek attention, the declaration here is quite controversial and rather be avoided by any brand to not get in lime light.

    3. As Banksy said, in a fight between the powerful and the weak, if you stay neutral, you are supporting the powerful.

    4. The freedom is important and I consider development as a form of art. How else should we express ourselves if not via art?

    @DrPitLazarus lol
  • 2
    I suck at articulating my thoughts and opinions, but I hope I am making some sense.

    Open to counter thoughts and change my view point, based on convincing argument.
  • 2
    @Floydimus I disagree with #1, I think that open source is just a call for collaboration without any particular political agenda. Think of Linux, React or any of the dozens of corporate projects that are open sourced. They're great because they serve as a platform, which role is cemented by their open-source nature. Any corporate user of these platforms can - and they regularly do - extend the standard by opening an issue, discussing the required changes and making a PR.

    Zero-income projects maintained by private individuals in their free time can represent their authors' opinions, and therefore notepad++ can be part of a rebellion, but this isn't implied by its open-source nature.
  • 1
    @Floydimus I get from where it's coming, and I'm not strongly opposed to the idea. Although, #1 is a total stretch.

    Can't one just maintain their project without involving its releases in any agenda at all? You don't even need to compare it with corporate cringe that's happening in the background. The outcome remains the same - such agenda is only summoning more questions than answers. Humanitarian support to those in need is all there is to it, in the end of the day, and not yet another old-school forum announcement about war happening unrelated to the users of the said forum, that went there to talk about *the* project. (Forum is just an example here.)

    I'd rather like the direct call to action of supporting the victims than subtle "Make apps not war" slogan. At least, it would make one look more dedicated to the idea, and others to consider an action. I like how Wikipedia does this - without walking around the angles. Straight to the point!
  • 3
    @Floydimus I agree with others regarding #1. OS was never about Rebellion or any Agenda. Open Source was always just "lets just make something cool for everyone by everyone"

    #2 you have no proof that NotePad doesn't do this to seek attention. In fact Id argue that people who force their opinions down the throats of public masses are absolutely attention whoring. "Look at me, Im on this side everyone!!!" It's disgusting imo

    3# is a guilt trip that never made any sense. You can extrapolate this to extremes and it very quickly falls appart. Being neutral was never supporting anything or anyone. I mean a) you don't know if anyone is neutral, they may just be quiet or uncomfortablr with saying b) being neutral can also mean that the person is still doing his own Research, this argument demonizes Research by saying "if you're not with us, you're against us, decide now!" just wrong imo

    Black text on white backgroud is not art, It's just talking. Call me when it at least Rhymes...
  • 3
    @Hazarth I'm on board with your take on neutrality. It's just as screaming at people with disabilities, neurolitic problems and those who mind their innocent business, that they are left out, because they don't choose or declare anything.
  • 2
    @Hazarth @vintprox @lbfalvy Fair point. I did not know it was maintained by single person.

    And you guys managed to change my mind (though partially). I still feel one should be able to express themselves in ways they want.
  • 2
    @Floydimus they should be able to, no doubt. Sometimes, whenever we say "let them express themselves however they want", we forget to mention that nobody really can stop this - it simply bears an outcome/backlash if done. Opinions composing such outcome are unavoidably different.
  • 1
    @vintprox choices have consequences.
Add Comment