Personality is important.
What if the user does not care "who" the author is, other than to identify what he has written?
For example, I have no idea "who" Arthur Whitney is, but I will not hesitate to spend time learning any software he writes. His work speaks for itself.
Same for djb.
In the context of how I choose software, personality is irrelevant.
I am unlikely to ever interact with these authors.
If people in forums and committees put these authors down or criticize their work then that tells me something about the people in forums and committees.
I am not sure I understand what bothers them about the few people who have rare ability to "push the envelope" in software and share their work over the internet, but I am aware that it bothers some people.
Yes, if that personality results in "sexual harassment, bullying, blackmail, and physical harm" (https://medium.com/@hdevalence/when-hell-kept-on-payroll-som...), then that personality is more important then "aesthetics".
Previous HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13891513 I wonder if this has gone anywhere in the courts.
At this time there is another item on the HN front page about a Linux distribution called "Void Linux". Several of the comments indicate it uses "runit". Runit is a copy of software called "daemontools", written by djb. I use daemontools. I would like to keep using it.
Do I need to cease using it because people in blogs and forums are discussing personal matters involving the author? Is it acceptable to use Void Linux?
To list all the popular software/websites that may include/use code/software from this author would be an exhausting exercise. It would probably include many well-known entries, such as major email providers, DuckDuckGo, OpenDNS and WhatsApp.
I can easily avoid those popular choices, but I still need to use daemontools, tinydns, clockadd, and other programs by this author. IMHO they have no equal.
For clarification, by "aesthetics" I mean software aesthetics. Namely, a preference for small program size, terse syntax, low resource requirements, and numerous other "aesthetic" qualities. These qualities are evident from the code itself and I need not know anything about the life of the author.
It may be better that I do not know. Consider an avid reader who grows to love the work of a particular author. Then one day she decides to meet the author. Unfortunately she is severely let down when she learns the author's personality is not what she expected. Does this reduce the quality of his art that she previously enjoyed? One can apply this idea to any form of art. The art itself vs the life of the artist. To me, software is a form of art.
Yes, and it's disingenious to suggest that I suggested otherwise.
> These qualities are evident from the code itself
But you don't read the code of every single package on your system. Similarly, you probably don't have to research the personal background of every single developer.
> IMHO they have no equal.
Well, there you go then. That's a good reason to use them. I said personality can be more important than aesthetics, I did not say personality is more important than any other criterion you might think of.
> It may be better that I do not know.
It may, although now you do know. Actively seeking out information to act on is different from acting on information that was communicated to you. But again, if you feel that I am saying you are a bad person for using tinydns, you feel wrong.
As it happens, I am constantly reading the sources of the software I use: kernel, userland and third party. And I do pay attention to attributed authorship on that software.
But I am not evaulating any software based on "personalities" of its authors, as alleged by random people, often anonymous, in internet mailing lists, forums, blogs, etc.
I am going to continue to use the "best software available", as determined by me, for better or worse. I think I am not alone in that approach and I think it is reasonable. I will not be distracted by petty criticisms of what I know to be good software or "dirty laundry" about the authors on the internet that I may encounter in the process.
I'm calling bullshit on the statement that you have read every single line of code for the software running on your system.
> I am going to continue to use the "best software available", as determined by me
Good for you.
Those qualities of the software and its design, what I call "software aesthetics" might include, among other things, the size of the program, its resource requirements, dependencies, configuration, and even, yes, the source code itself. Nowhere did I suggest that I read "every line" of every source code file comprising the operating system I use.
Where possible I do selectively read and sometimes edit some of these files. With respect to third party software, I often do read every file. I prefer software that is small enough where I can do this. But what does the idea of reading "every line of code" in an (operating) system have to do with my original comment? Nothing.
In any event, since you have shifted the discussion to (operating) systems, I can confirm I did not choose the (operating) system I use based on the "personality" of its authors. I chose it because of the "software aesthetics" reflected in the software itself. As I see it, this might include an appreciation for the command line and small program size, manual configuration by the user and having all options off by default, documentation, portability and "clean code", among other things. People making comments in email or on the www on whether they like or dislike the authors of this software did not affect my decision to use it.
The point of my original comment was simple: someone may choose software based on the software itself, not the author's personality, whatever that may be. I thought this is worth considering in response to the parent comment that "Personality is important". But others may disagree.
I would like to end this exchange now. I appreciate your input.
I agree, but I wonder how it factors in. Compare DJB to Linus Torvalds or Theo de Raadt or Steve Jobs or Steve Balmer or Travis Kalanick, as examples with a variety of outcomes (and I'm not trying hard to come up with those names; there are many more out there). Maybe the determining factor is something other than abrasiveness, maybe it's just balanced against demand for your project or other factors, maybe it depends on the market segment you're operating in - or maybe it's circumstance and luck that really matter.
It's hard to deny that Linus would not lose influence by having a modicum of self control and not saying someone should have been aborted because of a bad patch. Sure, maybe DJB won't become uber-famous by being nicer, but at the very least he wouldn't generate these sorts of conversations every time he writes something.
There's so many documented cases of people saying they don't want to work with Torvalds or Kalanick. In exchange for what? Being able to be some massive edgelord?
If even a single good core Linux developer would otherwise be contributing, Torvald's abrassiveness would be a net negative I think.
Kids, I speak as one of the few people, possibly the only person, in this discussion who has actually been subject to this. Daniel J. Bernstein is not in the same class of people as the people who call for retroactive abortions of their correspondents or who call people "slimy hypocritical asshole". It is a calumny to put him in that class.
And if I, who actually has been subject to this, say this, all of you, who have not, do not have a leg to stand upon.
I had cited the abortion example as it's perhaps the most well-known example of Torvald's behavior. I should have made that more clear.