Slashdot Mirror
Node.js Forked By Top Contributors
New submitter jonhorvath writes: Several of the top contributors to Node.js, a popular open source run-time environment, have decided to fork the project, creating io.js as an alternative. The developers were unhappy with how cloud computing company Joyent was directing work on Node.js. Mikeal Rogers said, "We don't want to have just one person who's appointed by a company making decisions. We want contributors to have more control, to seek consensus." Here's the new repository, and a README file to go with it. A developer at Uber tweeted that they've already migrated to io.js on their production systems. It'll be interesting to see how many other sites follow.
Very true. For "the common man" to know what direction to take, too many choices can be bad......especially when there is more similarity than differences and not enough experience to know which differences will be important to them in the future.
So what's wrong? It's one thing to accidentally have (things that can be seen as) sexist texts in a product but the idea that correcting that is somehow wrong is unbelievable idiotic. There is no logical reason to resist the changes which leads to the conclusion that the person in question either is someone that want more control of the project than is reasonable (complaining and blocking edits just to be in control) or that he is indeed sexist.
As for you and your coworkers the only remaining reason to be upset is if you are sexist idiots.
So you are proud to do buisness with them why? Because their logic is that if you use any gender specific pronouns you are, by default, misogynistic?
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Corporations need to understand that while they will get features they want, sometimes they need to address the needs of the whole community. Else, they will end up with no support. No support, but everything you want may be okay, but more likely no support will kill whatever it is that you wanted.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
You're blinded by your strong support of activism. The issue is the way that Joyent threw the guy under the bus. They said, in essence, "We would fire this guy if we could, but he's totally not an employee. We hate him as much as you do, so don't hate on us!" And they said it in a very public way. That's alienation. Oh, they forked it? Big surprise.
If you actually looked at the merge request he rejected it for being a worthless change. He didn't invest any value in a change that had no functional improvements and didn't even make the documentation any clearer. It was just churn. He didn't reject it on the grounds that pronouns should be masculine.
"Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
Again, here is someone who didn't look at the request and doesn't understand why it was rejected. Just lap up that SJW narrative and don't think about it. You get an A+ in modern activism.
What happened here is a request was deferred for valid technical reasons and then removed because of intra-project politics. Those same politics led to the forking.
"Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
Reading the blog, he would not have been fired for using the gendered pronoun, but for refusing to accept it being changed.
It's important. If you don't think it is, try looking for any gendered pronoun in (say) the Eclipe Documentation (Think IBM) or in the Java Tutorial (think Oracle).
And no, I haven't looked at it in depth, but I trust both IBM and Oracle to use gender neutral pronouns (except for the rare cases when they want to specify the gender of a person, as in "Alice" or "Bob"). What is good enough for IBM and Oracle (and every other corporation out there) is good enough for Joyent.
You never know what is enough unless you know what is more than enough. - Blake
They lost me when they said had he been a Joyent employee it would have been a firing offense. I say: give it up, She's dead Jim and you killed it by politicizing a commit. Fork it and forget it. goodbye.
---Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A START
Spoken like a true newcomer to open source. I've been reading slashdot since it was called "chips and dips" (that was around 1997) and to this day it still amazes me that somebody who rejects the principles of open source would have the slightest interest reading slashdot, let alone participating in a slashdot discussion. You're as out-of-place here as an atheist at mass.
But Node.js itself is already a distraction.
Its concepts and ideas aren't new. We've been using its techniques in C, C++, Java, Python, Erlang and other languages (all much better than JavaScript, I may add) for many years before it arrived on the scene.
If any software is guilty of causing duplicated effort, it is Node.js.
He's referring to me, I think. And I agree - I'll post any way I please.
Keep something in mind - this pull request was submitted by THE FORMER MAINTAINER.
And any time someone uses "SJW" as an insult, I know I'm dealing with someone who doesn't deserve my respect - and that's why I made the "congratulations" comment.
The point is that the abiliity to fork is a core principle and key prerequisite of open source. Furthermore, choice is the basic premise and driving force of open source. To complain about choice in open source is nonsensical, because if choice wasn't there, it wouldn't be open source in the first place. It's like a proprietary software developer complaining that he DOESN'T have choice. Well, duh!
Thats exactly it. Drama is hostile, doesnt matter over what exactly. SJW or something else.
I choose to work somewhere to build a particular product, idea or service - thats what im there for, if it comes with a truckload of drama and emotion i will simply go elsewhere. Which is what the devs here did.
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org Errors found while checking this document as HTML5!
Don't forget that the PC totally owned the business market, spreadsheets were the killer application of the 80s and the Amiga's multimedia capabilities was totally irrelevant to that. In fact, graphics and sound cards were an add-on to PCs long, long after that. They could have made something similar to the Sony Playstation and become kings of the gaming market, but I doubt they ever had a shot at replacing the PC.
At any rate, it's obvious that in many cases we have picked a non-optimal solution, but the switching costs are just too high. Things like driving on left vs right, power plugs, 50Hz vs 60Hz TV, imperial vs metric and so on. Or simply because of history or network effects, we use COBOL because we got 20 years of code written in COBOL. Or we're on Facebook because everyone else is on Facebook. Products are like genes, it's not the "best" genes that survive it's those that turn a profit and reproduce.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
As noted elsewhere: This was a pull that added nothing to the code except for changing comments. Ben Noordhuis initially and rightly rejected this change as it added nothing of value. Isaac Schlueter then did an override and made the commit. This sent out two very strong messages that should give project contributors pause and was likely the reason for Noordhuis' attempt to revert the commit: (1) The project leads put high value in making political statements over only allowing quality commits on every commit that improve the actual software; and (2) the project leads put low value in the time of their developers who have to read over these essentially non-functional commits as now they have shown that minimally functional changes are all that's needed to get a submission into code. For these reasons I can completely understand Noordhius' desire to revert...but of course, the SJW megaphones were turned all the way up. "Death to efficiency, long live our political butthurt! We are the victims, hear us roar as we trample our message all over your passion!"
Now I'm not at all saying that the change to the comments for gender shouldn't or couldn't have been made...but don't expect a commit only on changing some comments that don't matter to the functionality of the code...that's wasting time for a political statement that has no real value. If the change included some bug fixes or a solution to a functional problem, then by all means, the commit should have been allowed including the gender change. That was sorely not the case here.