This is a ridiculous take. Nothing in the parent comment even remotely hints at feeling entitled to the labor of the Musl maintainers — they just disagree with implementation decisions that have been made.

And while I’d agree in principle that nobody is entitled to anyone else’s labor for free, I’d also add that nobody is entitled to be shielded from criticism of work they have chosen to publish, or to have that criticism be watered down to a sanitized, milquetoast version of the writer’s intended message.

This shouldn't have to be spelled out loud, but you don't ever need to misrepresent the maintainer's position to criticize a technical decision. "They're harming everyone by intentionally shipping crippled software!" Really?

One could say the same thing about your previous post, falsely claiming the person you replied to felt “entitled to someone’s labor,” when they said no such thing.

Now, that is a ridiculous take. By your definition, entitled people have to describe themselves as such? The rest of us use "entitlement" as a term to describe the action of others. People aren't making "false claims" when they do that.

See "strawman fallacy". People absolutely are making false claims, including about entitlement. Your imagining someone to be entitled does not make them so, and your accusation belittles their actual, valid reasoning. It actually shows you to be the one "entitled" to your projected redeclaration of their identity and rationale - implying the accuser (you) is more likely to have narcissistic tendencies than the person holding a potentially shared value-based opinion about the facts being criticised. Furthermore, it's about irrellevant as calling out someone for being "entitled to breathe air" if you catch them criticizing the air's quality.

> See "strawman fallacy". People absolutely are making false claims, including about entitlement.

You certainly demonstrated the fallacy. You took the most absurd interpretation of my words that is possible in a literal sense because that's easier for you to mock.

Describing someone's behavior as entitled doesn't amount to making a false claim. That's the most obvious interpretation of what I actually said. But you took it to mean that any claim of entitlement can't be false.

> Your imagining someone to be entitled does not make them so, and your accusation belittles their actual, valid reasoning.

There's no imagination or accusation involved here when the very comment I'm referring to is right here in this very thread. It's a statement of fact.

The parts I quoted are ad hominem attacks that accuses someone of neglecting an obligation that objectively doesn't exist. That's the dictionary definition of entitlement.

> It actually shows you to be the one "entitled" to your projected redeclaration of their identity and rationale

Like misrepresenting my words or calling me "narcissistic?"

> potentially shared value-based opinion about the facts being criticised

The parts I quoted isn't a fact-based criticism. It's an ad hominem attack.

> irrellevant as calling out someone for being "entitled to breathe air" if you catch them criticizing the air's quality

Everyone is entitled access to clean air. People have an obligation to keep the air clean.

No one is entitled access to free labor, including having your pet features implemented and maintained in a software project.

But overall, gosh. How many fallacies, misrepresentations, and personal insults can you pack in such a short comment?

I mean… this is a lot of ink to spill over a comment that did sound incredibly entitled.

The stuff op quoted:

> intentionally-faulty software

> the maintainer only caved

> he's harming his users with his stubbornness

is strong language and not productive. If someone at my company sincerely criticized my work in this way I'd find it unacceptable and managers would get involved. There's criticism and there's polemics, and this is the latter.

As it turns out, HN is not your office and HR isn’t here to “get involved.”. Thankfully.

I would agree there is a line, but disagree that the original poster stepped over it. Disagreement, even vigorous disagreement is important.

Calling out bad technical decisions is important.

Calling out oversensitive people who want to censor online discourse to their personal tastes is also important.

If criticism is "censorship," you are very much censoring me too. FYI I didn't ask anyone's post to be taken down.

Furthermore, ad hominem attacks have nothing to do with "calling out bad technical decisions."

Now, that is a ridiculous take. By your definition, censorious people have to describe themselves as such? The rest of us use "censor" as a term to describe the action of others.

No, to censor means to remove speech and I have never defined it any other way. Calling out abuse for what it is hardly fits that definition.

BTW go take my words verbatim and use it against me if my actions are genuinely hypocritical. But to do that for my actions you made up is abusive and makes you look bad.

Have a nice day.

> As it turns out, HN is not your office

Fair, but I'd hold HN to a higher standard. We're peers and we choose to be here. We should treat each other with kindness and respect, not contempt. I read a fair amount of contempt in OP's characterization, and I hold that separate from respectful criticism.

I looked up a thread about this from 2020 [0] and it actually seems well reasoned, calm, and respectful. No one's slinging around words like "faulty", "broken", or "harm" because those tend to insult people and derail technical discussions.

And FWIW, that's why I would get managers involved if this happened in the workplace. Calling people's work "broken by design" or "harmful" is how to start an argument, not how to solve a problem. If someone's acting this way, there's no way things are going well.

[0]: https://www.openwall.com/lists/musl/2020/04/17/7

Im gently informing you that you’re being ridiculously oversensitive if you think that post needed to be policed.

This concept of ownership is questionable to begin with.

If that maintainer abandoned the project, it would either be picked up or abandoned altogether if the project were worthless.

It's a borderline case because it's almost worthless due to the aforementioned issues.

we are not entitled to it, but it was the sole reason why our team (and it looks like others did too) stopped using alpine and i believe that should be valid feedback to the maintainer.