Back

Actually, to borrow from @DoubleA, it's worse than that.

It's like talking to someone who is in a crappy apartment as though they have the agency and skills to stake out a plot of land and build their own home.

You have to be at peace with the fact that some people just want to exist and not worry about so many things. And they still have a right to complain about their situation.

The replies here are so incredibly fascinating.

Half of you understand what I'm saying.

The other half are missing the point, aggressively. Sometimes it seems willful!

So. To make this explicitly clear: I'm not making any comment about any software here. I've said nothing about which is better or worse. I've not made any value judgment on the software people choose to use.

This is about how you talk to other people.

@TechConnectify The reason why isn't because people are wilfully ignoring your point, but that your point is only kinda correct. Sure, many open source projects are unpolished, but also many open source projects are funded by corporations, and are largely indistinguishable from paid software except for the monetisation model. Eg. companies often offer open source software but with paid support.

Because of that, you're lumping way too much into one stereotype; sometimes skills aren't needed.

@qinjuehang hey man. Maybe try rereading the post you are replying to and listen to what I'm telling you it is about and what it is not about.

You're making a lot of assumptions and acting upon them in this reply.

@TechConnectify You made a pretty clear analogy about open source software being akin to home ownership, requiring skills.

All I'm saying is that this analogy is (perhaps?) often true, but also many times quite silly. People will bristle at that.

Is your analogy true if you suggest Telegram to someone frustrated with Meta? I chat with my aged family on Telegram all the time, because it's just common in my part of the world. The problem is you say 'open source', which is too diverse a category.

@qinjuehang again. You are fixating on a technical thing about the analogy and not what the analogy intends to demonstrate.

And you are also doing the thing the analogy is intending to demonstrate! Do you see this?

@qinjuehang almost no analogies are perfect! Like, woe is me if I'm going to have to figure out how to make every analogy I make exactly technically perfect.

By fixating on the ways you think the analogy fails, you aren't engaging with the point of the analogy at all.

A lot of people here do this and my goodness is it irritating. The literal definition of well actually.

@TechConnectify @qinjuehang I’m going to “well actually” you by saying that, without quotation marks, the end is difficult to read [for me, at least]