And his article is indeed misleading, but it does not mean that these remarks are really true. If you were in the audience for his business, you might think âthatâs true!â and continue to give DetSys your faith, but youâre not, so why take this article seriously?
We are not the target audience for this article. The target audience for this article is the DetSys âcommunityâ (they still have a community roughly), and DetSys business partners. The main purpose of this article is to make these people feel that the situation is not so bad for DetSys. Itâs just that we saw and spread this article within the NixOS community.
Iâm not defending Eelco Dolstra, Iâm just talking about something that people usually ignore.
Eelco has the dual role of DetSys manager and de facto top manager of the NixOS community, but he did not grasp the responsibilities of both roles.
Eelco Dolstraâs purpose in posting this article is not to provoke or threaten other members of the community. Understanding this is very important for our current relationship with existing members. I donât think itâs helpful to exaggerate contradictions too much, rather, we should keep things as-is.
Thanks. You may be right. I might give him benefice of doubt, and will wait for the board statement.
Iâm a bit pessimistic, because other members of the community already explained they could not longer give him that benefice, after too many betrayals felt. But Iâll certainly prefer to do this from my own reasons, rather than following others.
Sorry I did not mean to imply that you were or are.
If there are two houses, and one is on fire, and you, holding the hose, first walk to the house that isnât on fire and assure the owners of the house that you wonât let it burn down⌠in effect youâve also spoken to the owners of the house that is burning down.
This topicâs purpose is a call to action to prevent fear from sending the wrong message to outsiders. NixOS is not dying. This Eeco person canât kill the project, not even with a thousand blogposts to the wrong audience, itâs your and my responsibility to do that through constructive actions.
Iâm sure you can see that this metaphor is inappropriate. If there was no crisis, then of course there would be no reason for him to do this. I should also point out that DetSys is a commercial company. DetSys is not primarily an open source community. Just because you can consider the two side by side doesnât mean Eelco Dolstra can too.
Iâm not saying that what Eelco Dolstra did was not inappropriate, he certainly (again, true to his style) failed to clarify the stakes and once again put the NixOS community in an uncomfortable position. From the perspective of the NixOS community, he is indeed unqualified in handling these issues, so it is necessary to elect a new leader or team of leaders.
At the time of you writing that, it was not prohibited. Just look at the timestamps, the post by rhendric is from 2024-04-28 16:57, while your claim is from 2024-04-29 2:09, hence the statement you made was incorrect.
And about the current state, the question whether infinitely re-iterating the same points over and over again or sealioning ever deeper into each fractal detail are actual discussions, is a different aspect in itself.
You and wombat either have serious trouble understanding the concepts of grammatical tense (hint: past tense), strictly monotonous progression of time (hint: time stamps), and how both of these work together; or you are deliberately just bringing up the same things over and over again, even attempting to shift unrelated topics into that direction.
Please make up your mind which of these is the case, and then stop acting so ridiculously innocent.
Now you are just miss-representing the facts. RFC 49 was not about pushing flakes, it was about formalizing the flake format. The consensus was that at that point to continue the flake experiment for an undefined period of time and reopen the RFC process once people feel more familiar with it to form opinions. That is why, until this day, flakes are hidden behind the experimental features flag.
The reason why flakes are everywhere is that the Nix user base fond them compelling enough to adopt them at large is because they found this feature so useful they decided to adopt even though it was just experimental. The was no obvious abuse of power here that pushed people for adoption, the opposite is true. NIxpkgs and NixOS refer to channels first and foremost in their documentation, making what I can only assume is a conscious effort to dance around the fact that flakes are becoming the new standard.
I struggle do see what your actual overall point is in this conversation, but please stop to derail it further.
Being right just for the purpose of being right serves no purpose at all, even if it were true.
This typically happens because people flag the posts. Discourse will hide them once sufficient flagging has happened, and the number is quite low - trust status requirements prevent most abuse of the system, and a post being hidden isnât a particularly big penalty anyway.
Unsurprisingly, this happens more to unpopular views, the average reader is more likely to let something they agree with slide.
Moderators could quite easily ban folks whose opinions they donât like, and outright remove the posts (which happens in some discourse instances, e.g. the elm one). Hiding them would be a hilariously ineffective way to censor you compared to that. I do imagine misattribution of this feature to moderator censorship is part of what has riled folks up so much, unfortunately.
That said, these posts are hidden appropriately, all this discussion is way off-topic from the original post, and as such should be flagged off-topic and hidden, even just according to forum etiquette. Nobody was even talking about politics until like three posts ago, this is just a response to all the brigading (which has since mostly ceased as the freshness of the drama wore off).
If you wish to debate the meaning of âpoliticalâ or whether or which discussions should be permitted in certain circles, move it to a separate, appropriately titled topic. Moderators could do that, but theyâre not very heavy handed with this feature, presumably there arenât enough of them and they probably donât want to encourage these frankly unhealthy discussions.
Except it breaks the reading flow, both by requiring an extra action to see the post, and by showing the text in a low-contrast, faded foreground. This is very inaccurate to downplay the relevance of this measure.
I believe this was not a very strong demonstration of âpowerâ, rather the opposite.