Sometimes you have to look at what somebody says, and not how they say it. I personally wouldn't have approached the trolls the way Zed did, but he was right that this was broken and needed to be fixed. Github did a great job - as far as I can tell they handled things professionally and cranked out a fix in just a few days. Everybody wins (except the trolls).
I do not agree. You can't simply ignore HOW somebody says something. How you say something almost more important than what you say.
If Zed hadn't written a blog post detailing how he fucked everything up (in all his greatness, apparently) it wouldn't have gotten such exposure and would likely have died out.
He had to make his point with a hammer or it wouldn't have mattered. And it's unfortunate that it took a hammer to make the point. I'd even go so far as to say this feature isn't actually all that important. Zed Shaw just MADE it important.
> If Zed hadn't written a blog post detailing how he fucked everything up (in all his greatness, apparently) it wouldn't have gotten such exposure and would likely have died out.
Can you explain where in my blog post I claim I'm great? I think all I did was explain what was happening and how this was someone who bothered me in the past and followed me to github, and then there was nothing I could do about it.
I guess I figured it was implied. With your influence, you totally could've emailed the github guys and voice your concerns privately. Instead, you chose to do your own thing and publicize it and how awesomely you pwned the dude.
And then you claimed it was all to improve the github experience. Cmon.
So, you basically were stirring up drama by exaggerating what I said for effect, yet I'm the drama queen and attention whore.
Next time, actually read what I write instead of just imagining you read it after seeing a stream of tweets and your buddies on reddit tell it to you 4th person in some comments. For example, I didn't contact github because I knew one of the peole working there was in on the joke. If you read what I wrote you would have known that, idiot.
> For example, I didn't contact github because I knew one of the peole working there was in on the joke.
For the record, this isn't true no matter how many times you repeat it. You should have emailed us and we would have taken care of it without a holiday weekend filled with unnecessary drama.
> For the record, this isn't true no matter how many times you repeat it.
What it looks like from an outsider: He said, (s)he said.
I don't know if Zed is right. I don't know if you are right. What I do know is Zed Shaw ranted and got stuff fixed. Apparently, their was some merit to what he was saying, and at least the majority of his story can confirmed to be true. As for the employee, it's just as easy for you to be misinformed or simply ignorant of the truth as it is for Zed to be wrong. No malice, just mistaken.
Here's another data point: when Zed went off on Debian, he was either really mistaken or simply imagining things that have no connection with reality.
> This is what Debian maintainers are doing, but there's a very specific reason why they do this and it's not a "culture clash". It's embrace and extend which they probably learned from Microsoft. You see, if you have to adapt your software and processes to their weird layout and packages, then you can't get off their platform. It is sadly pure business and has nothing to do with open source, quality, or culture.
> It's simply a tactic to make sure that you are stuck on Debian.
Whether you like Debian and agree with their technical decisions, or not, it's a non-profit completely based on open-source code. There is no business, and there is no motivation to lock you in to Debian, and there is no desire to do so, either. Complaining about Debian in technical terms is fine; making stuff up about the project is beyond the pale.
After that episode, I became much more inclined to take what Zed has to say with a large grain of salt.
> After that episode, I became much more inclined to take what Zed has to say with a large grain of salt.
Like I said, it's essentially a he said, she said match. github, if anything, let themselves get pulled into it. Just fix the problem and move on. The only they've done is make note of what they disagree with (and frankly, their denials don't match up with what Zed accused anyways).
I learned a long time ago that as a company, you should avoid getting into a pissing contest on the forums.
Hey Zed, I appreciate your hyperbolic writing style and I think the point you made was well thought out and well presented the first time, but this kind of mudslinging just isn't necessary. Just take the high road on this comment.
"For example, I didn't contact github because I knew one of the peole working there was in on the joke."
hmm, couldn't it be that some other customer service people would actually do their job about your issue? How do you know it would all be channeled through this one guy that was in on the joke? In any case if they did ignore your request, you could still do the whole crashing thing...
Come on, admit that Zed is funny with style. He's bragging, too, but it's never condescending. That's the difference between a gentleman and dandy, and an ugly troll.
You know, I grew in the society which had a lot of problems and a consequence grew a very good sense of humor (and that without laugh tracks).
If someone thinks that Zed's writing is funny they still have a lot to discover.
You still have to admit that zed went through a lot of trouble just to stop the harassment. I'd probably make a blog post too if the harassment went on for as long as it did for zed.
