Subject: Re: [arch-general] Proposal: add "--disable-modern-top" to procps-ng configure flags
This is an absolutely horrible response and let me tell you: telling others what
to do is not how you should live, think, use computers or (FOSS) software.
So first of all, I hope you use computers because they make getting your job
done easy enough _to you_. Anything beyond can in fact be viewed as you acting
Apologies if this is misformatted, and I hope it works; I didn't
expect to be responding and am working in the system optimized for
readability over composition.
What does your first paragraph even mean? You hope we see your reply in a way
that pleases us, which might be on braille readers or piped to espeak to be
played on commute. You carry a hint of how others are supposed to receive your
content, and you state this first, maybe because you think that's more important
than what you're actually saying. Then you say something about how you have to
be "working in the system", which I'll just interpret as you running your mail
program as root. *shrug*. That system is then optimized for readability over
composition. Both terms so overused since the invention of the personal computer
that I don't even remember what they mean any more.
I subscribed to this list just last night in hopes of gaining better
visibility into the tools that I use. I have, and I think that I
The twist in "gaining better visibility into the tools that I use" is nothing
short of brilliant. I hardly understand the sentence, right between "you'd like
to gain better visibility", as in you want to be seen and
"visibility into the tools", which might mean that you imagine you're swimming
in more bright blue waters somewhere closer to where the software you're using
Thing is that this isn't some zelda role-playing game. You're talking to actual
people with actual responsibilities and actually share their time with their
work, their families and whomever else they decide to spend their lives with.
should report my findings. This thread has convinced me to, first,
unsubscribe from this list immediately, because the information isn't
worth exposure to this kind of toxicity, and second, start moving away
from Arch, because I can't trust it to ship good code.
So one thing that hasn't existed 10 years ago is framing fiction as facts like
you are doing it here. You're basically imagining that you have to stay away
from discussions where somebody tells you you're wrong, and completely
caricature any act of verbal violence against you by completely ignoring whether
they might have had a point. Either you're caught in a case of backfire effect
or you were told how terribly things were going around here only looking for
some confirmation - See also: confirmation bias.
The immediate response and a good bit of the followup was acutely
hostile to both the reporting user and to the ability of this
community to build good software. It argues to me that I cannot trust
Community? Build? Good? Software? Dude, most of us got the package in question
on their hard drive from a pacman -S under some sort of brain-outage or
automatically by whatever installation script they had at the time they
installed it. That said, yes, some hostility might occur.
I'll get to what you should do with it in a minute.
Arch to comprehend a world outside its little bubble, think about its
users, acknowledge possible bugs that aren't instantly obvious to the
Arch staff, cause issues to be upstreamed, or maintain a climate of
discussion that is conducive to discussing problems and fixing
them. Evaporative cooling of group beliefs ensures that
honesty-brutality culture inevitably spirals into a festering
close-minded pit that cannot accept outside contributions or think of
the bigger picture. Maintaining the free flow of information is
important, but it must be done in the context of the larger community
a tiny walled-off group can communicate as freely as it wants inside
itself, but if nothing goes over the wall there might as well be no
free flow at all.
You know you're slandering. What you're saying is because you did not get your
say, nobody gets their say even if they might be right, and the people who
create the content (PKGBUILDs for our packages) have all the time they need to
grant every unimportant user's wish. Last time I checked, nope, that's not the
case. Double-checking, because you seem desperate, nope, still not the case.
Even if the original report was not flawless, even if it was a repeat,
even if it was sent to the right people, hostile repression was not
the correct response. If nothing else, the fact that it's a repeat
should be demonstrated and more deeply evaluated. This time it ended
up working out, but if this is representative of the Arch community I
can't trust it to handle other bugs. How many more severe issues are
hiding in Arch, or in upstream packages, because the original reporter
was already having a bad day and just gave up? Because people aren't
emotionless robots and a horrible thread like this stressed someone
out enough to cause an error? Because someone jumped to an incorrect
conclusion and shut down discussion prematurely?
You overgeneralized ("if this is representative"), you talked about bugs like
OP should be treated the same as anyone who can't boot their system after
yesterday's updates. Even then, the very best that arch's staff should be doing
is to try make you come up with configuration, environment information and
whatever else debug data, and tell you where to create a bug report.
But in above paragraph, you make it look like people's emotions are more
important than technical accuracy, framed in a way which is seriously worhty of
As promised, I'm going to tell you what to do if you feel like you're getting
shut down: get some data, create your own bubble and use that AUR package, don't
give up on a bunch of people who are so tired of discussing taste and cosmetic
adjustments. That's not what they enjoy to spend their weekends on.
Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com) Secure Em