Sven Slootweg (soft-deprecated) @joepie91@pixie.town

@efi @godotengine An open-source developer who knows what happens to maintainers' motivation and joy in their work when people start hounding them across social media with personal demands.

@efi @godotengine The meme was a call for funding - see also the second post.

And no, that is not how any of this works, for *any* open-source project, and is honestly quite rude. Developers do not *owe* you workflow improvements, and it is absolutely important to be constructive and not unnecessarily abrasive, in how you suggest workflow improvements or provide (critical) feedback.

As for the last point: just because the team can do one thing, doesn't mean they can just as easily do another thing, because different tasks aren't interchangeable - and there may well be very good reasons that they picked one thing rather than the other.

TL;DR: being a user of something does *not* entitle you to yelling at people that the thing you're using isn't perfect. If you want things to improve, then provide *constructive* feedback, and do so in the correct place (and for Godot, that is in the issue tracker, according to the site).

@dieweltist @SehrLesbisch@chaos.social Be aware that a lot of medication explicitly should not be put into the fridge either due to either humidity or too low temperatures.

@efi @godotengine I mean, that's your choice to make, just like it's generally anybody's choice what projects they feel are worth keeping alive. Even if I have my opinions about that, that's not what I'm criticizing here.

I just find it... kind of inappropriate to respond to a call for funding, to keep the project alive, with what's almost a demand to do something in a very specific way. It's already hard enough to keep *any* open-source project funded, and it's really not helpful to be posting spiky comments in response, *especially* not if the thing you are demanding would require more funding than you are likely to give them.

This would be different if Godot were committing some grievous offense, something that actively harms people, because being open-source doesn't exempt one from criticism. But come on, this is a disagreement about the contribution workflow.

@efi @godotengine ... because funding is not docs editing? How contributions are handled vs. how the bills are paid by people maintaining the engine are two entirely separate subjects.

@efi @godotengine How is that related to a request for funding?

@efi @godotengine This seems like kind of a weird comment to make here?

@Byte I think it's good it exists. I'm concerned about its use of C++ which, while understandable from a historical perspective of where it comes from, is really not a good choice for what's arguably the largest attack surface on a modern system.

(There are also some maintainability arguments to be made here, but trying to discuss that somehow always seems to end up in flamewars)

@someonetellmetosleep@queer.party Sure. But that is comparing to a non-existent alternative - the antitrust ruling concerns their search engine and search advertising business, not their browser, so the chances of this resulting in a browser breakup are essentially nil.

Hence only bringing up the Firefox funding issue, and how I feel about the possibility of Mozilla going under - because that's simply the only impact this ruling is likely to have on the browser world.

@someonetellmetosleep@queer.party That's the thing, though - why would you put in all of the effort to create a new, better browser... when Firefox is right there, and it's Good Enough and the degradation is slow?

This is the core problem with controlled opposition; it is Good Enough by some metric that gets slightly worse every year, but never too fast to freak people out and create an opportunity for a critical mass of "people who want to start their own thing" to exist.

So yes, no other browser options exist. But why is that? Because the existing options are Good Enough. And yes, the standardization process is thoroughly captured. But why is that? Because no other browsers exist and the power is heavily centralized in Google and, yes, Mozilla. And Mozilla has every reason to go along with Google, and so functionally all the power lies with Google.

Mozilla is never going to throw Google out of the standards process, they're never going to go against them, because Google will just steamroll over them and this will only hurt Mozilla. So a third party is needed to do that - but there are none left, because you cannot gain any traction on *creating* one, because again, Firefox is Good Enough.

What I'm trying to say here is that all the issues you are describing likely exist *because* of Mozilla being controlled opposition. They cannot provide any counterweight, and they cannot fix the issue, they can only discourage others from even trying to.

And yes, I *do* expect that to improve when Mozilla goes under, simply because there is a vacuum, and the problem becomes obviously visible, and that makes it a lot easier to mobilize people.

Will that happen quickly? No, probably not, which is the usual problem with accelerationist views, which is why I'm trying to put out early warning here, to hopefully mitigate or eliminate the timespan during which there are zero alternatives.