All I am saying is that if the goal is to get people to use open source software (which it seems like this post is about and a lot of the discussions are too) then developers would need to make things which worked for people and listen to their feedback.

If that is not the goal and folks in this thread are happy for people to continue to use closed source software because it has more funding and thus better UI/UX, or just it is more in their interests to make things that appeal to people regardless of funding then that that is okay.

However, there seems to be a ideology where people evangalise open source software to folks yet ignore all of its flaws and tell them not to use closed source software that just looks and works better (arguably not all of the time but in some cases this is accurate).

So either we can have things that work for people, or we can have open source but not both all of the time because either open source devs cannot afford to make it so (which is understandable) or do not wish to.

This is the main point of contention I have been trying to get at but have not been putting very well until now.

No, that isn’t really what I’m talking about.

Sure, code quality matters.

I’m talking about things like mastodon trying to push a certain outlook upon its users just because the main dev thinks they should be using it a certain way, and hating how people actually use it.

It’s funny how you resort to personal insults to me even though I have not really to you. It’s true there are a lot of punctuation rules I do not understand. However, I would point out that this is not an english test, so it doesn’t matter.

Sadly, I am a writer, not a coder.

I have tried, but it never really stuck for me.

I can plan things out, know how they will work, but actually programming it is very unlikely.

There are two problems there:

One is that not all open source developers accept payment, this is accurate, we have come across some that refuse to be paid for their work and not everone has the money to pay for it.

This forces, we believe, people back into the freemium etc model. So really there don’t seem to be a lot of good solutions here, which seems to go against the original post.

Either folks somehow pool together to have enough resources to pay open source devs, we put up with whatever they decide to do, we create a new movement focused more around what the community wants or we go back to corporations, most will probably choose the latter as there’s less tension there.

Something to think on.

Correct, it is jaded. We have watched a lot of devs become worse and worse over time, ignore perfectly reasonable and useful requests or instead of implementing an already existing solution to a problem find a workaround to that problem instead which then goes on to not work forever.

So, if open source developers do not want to do the work, which is fair then either we have to create a new movement that is more community driven, or go back to corporations which the latter at least seems like not a great situation to be in.

Sure, but then we only have corporations left to turn to if open source devs don’t wish to do what is best for users.

Kind of goes against the point of the original post.

We’ve thought about it before, might just do it, but can’t pay much.

Sure, however, this apart from paying them goes against the original post then, doesn’t it?

Either we can be paying customers of a corporation and hopefully get what we want by leveraging social pressure or we have to put up with whatever open source devs decide, they might not even accept payment.

A pretty dire situation to be in.

Yeah, agreed.

okidoke, fair enough

deleted by creator

Sure but the same could be said and often is said for open source projects.

Open source devs often have a particular goal or vision in mind and will ignore any attempts to give the users what they actually want, either through issues or pull requests.

We’ve seen it so many times in open source projects, they love having that power over others and become mini dictators.

This is also true for open source software though, a lot of open source devs are mini dictators ruling over their own fiefdoms with an iron fist and they don’t care what the users, many of which have no coding ability, need or want.

Even those that do have some coding ability will be ignored if they try to change things upstream that the main devs don’t agree with, even if most users would welcome such a change.

Kind of good in a way. It was always colonialism for tech companies to be using it anyway, when it wasn’t meant for them.

Knowledge, perhaps but there are alredy places knowledge can be acquired publically like libraries etc.

No{one/many} are entitled to people’s personal spaces or thoughts especially if they are harrased a lot or the admins of an instance don’t do a good job protecting people from harrasment etc.

Folks have the right at any time to block others from seeing whatever they put out for any reason, instances the same, otherwise bad or insufficient moderation and harrasment happens just like on commercial social media (we bring that up because commercial social media cares even less a lot of the time).

Folks can and do release their knowledge publically (sometimes for payment) as well, so bookshops and perhaps video sites, more personal blogs etc might be a good place to find that stuff instead of trying to get into people’s personal spaces if they don’t want you or any{one/many} to.

The person in the last panel is obviously not a bard.

Okidoke

Good for them!

Fuck the abuse of crunch.

After reading up about it on Wikipedia, no we don’t think that is what we mean.

Sure! Happy to help.

Oh, well we can explain that.

Firstly it depends on if all of us are saying something or think a certain thing or just one of us.

Secondly if you’re referring to our post history it was a mixture of that and not wanting to be out here but we’ve had enough of hiding what/who we are recently and now it feels wrong to do that so we decided to be more ‘public’ about it.

Does that help?

Edit: And who can blame us really for not wanting to be ‘out’ about it when we get reactions like we did earlier?

We’ve only encountered somemany try to invalidate our existence once before and we were physically in a room with them (they are plural also) and the vitriol that spewed from their mouth was worrying, we didn’t out ourselves to them.

However, we had to to a friend who was also there which we did much later when she said that the other plural group knew more than us because she assumed we weren’t plural incorrectly, so we outed ourselves and that was that. Since then we’ve met other plural groups and felt more comfortable being who we are and knowing that we exist.

We are very tired of hiding our existence and wish the world was accepting and understanding of us, but it seems it still is not and a lot of people both plural and singlet have a lot invested in invalidating our existence or trying to twist it to how they exist and only accepting ‘medical’ ‘scientific’ ways of us existing.

This isn’t useful because not every{one/many} works the same way nor is everymany who are plural ‘disordered’ in the sense that the plurality itself causes problems or distress.

Only people whether singlet or plural telling us we don’t exist, don’t know what we’re talking about or trying to invalidate us just because people now spread knowledge of it online (and sure there are some fakers out there but like, we don’t hate them and hope they find what they’re looking for or discover they are actually what they thought they were ‘faking’) causes us distress.

Really though, I don’t want to have to justify our existence every time we use a different pronoun, just like being transgender (which we also are). We see so much hate about that too and it would just be so much simpler if people just believed us and stopped trying to play armchair psychologists or ‘spot the faker’ that shit doesn’t help anyone and people will figure themselves out in time and will probably be honest if they aren’t what they claimed to be, so why not believe them? What does it cost you to believe them?

Maybe it does cost something and we’re sorry if it does but we just don’t like what we experienced today or back several years ago and would like it to stop.