I’d appreciate not being called lazy for mentioning a lack of investment on Microsoft’s side to secure their paid and fairly lucrative service that they bought a popular code hosting platform to integrate with.
Can someone explain what this somewhat recent phenomenon is where people feel the need to defend the worlds biggest billion dollar businesses, that are also often subsidized by tax payer money in weird ways?
How did we go in 20 years from holding these companies to account when they'd misbehave to acting as if they are poor damsels in distress whenever someone points out a flaw?
> How did we go in 20 years from holding these companies to account when they'd misbehave to acting as if they are poor damsels in distress whenever someone points out a flaw?
Honestly I think the problem is more a rosy view of the past versus any actual change in behavior. There have always been defenders of such companies.
> How did we go in 20 years from holding these companies to account when they'd misbehave to acting as if they are poor damsels in distress whenever someone points out a flaw?
They hired a ton of people on very very good salaries
The original comment said to stop giving money to these companies if they are not giving you a satisfactory service.
The opposite, to be lazy and to continue giving them money whilst being unhappy with what you get in return, would actually be more like defending the companies.
The original comment actually criticized Microsoft for a lack of investment to secure their paid and fairly lucrative service that they bought a popular code hosting platform to integrate with.
The opposite we see here: to not criticize them; to blame Microsoft's failure on the critics; and even to discourage any such criticism, are actually more like defending large companies.
I won't "defend" Microsoft in this case, but I am always annoyed by phrases like "world's biggest billion-dollar businesses... bablah".
Their size or past misbehaviors shouldn't be relevant to this discussion. Bringing those up feels a bit like an ad hominem. Whether criticism is valid should depend entirely on how GitHub Actions actually works and how it compares to similar services.
There is a massive problem in open source where some people equate pointing out a problem with being too lazy to solve it — when in reality this just stifles the conversation. Especially when a prerequisite to any group project accomplishing anything is to first discuss the problem to be solved.
No that's actually a completely different issue. You're talking about volunteers working on side projects that are sometimes foundational to the way the internet works and then people feel entitled to tell them what to do without contributing.
Here we are talking about one of the worlds most valuable companies that gets all sorts of perks, benefits and preferential treatment from various entities and governments on the globe and somehow we have to be grateful when they deliver garbage while milking the business they bought.
No, that's actually the same issue. "Entitled to tell them what to do without contributing" is not a problem. Let them tell whoever what to do, the response is always the same: "patches welcome," or if that isn't even true (which it doesn't have to be), "feel free to fork."
don't confuse 'receiving something you did not pay for' with 'being allowed to feel entitled to anything' is all. 'open source' is just that, nothing more. if you want a service with your source, be prepared to sponsor it.
I still think people should want things and be vocal about what they want. This is the natural way for people to know what needs to be built. It is different from demanding something.
And besides that, a lot of people on here do pay for Github in the first place.
