There are accidents on the highway, planes crash, fires in buildings, etc. Let's reason about Jia Tan - a problem, not a danger to all of FOSS - not, like everything else these days, just embrace ignorant fears.
It's cool to destroy social trust, to deny it and abandon it. The counterargument is right in front of your nose - the incredible, infinite, world-changing world of FOSS. Think of all those amazing projects, social trust working over and over and over.
You're going to throw all that out over one guy? The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.
This is not what I meant. But I prefer a fork of an abandoned project which needs to gain new trust to be installed instead of a new release pushed through an auto update after 3 years that installs malware.
The parent comment was not about someone from the community taking over (which to be honest was the case in the xz story) but about posting the project on a „projects without maintenance“ site for any random person to take control.
So you're saying that if projects continue choosing to sunset without handing over the keys to the kingdom, open source will stop existing?
This is simply not even close to true.
Edit: I can't reply to your reply, so here will do. You've completely ignored my main point. I get that you want projects to pass on the torch, but saying open source will otherwise die is ridiculous.
Comments
But this is dangerous. There are many „Jia Tans“ out there who would love to continue maintenance of those projects with the full community.
There are accidents on the highway, planes crash, fires in buildings, etc. Let's reason about Jia Tan - a problem, not a danger to all of FOSS - not, like everything else these days, just embrace ignorant fears.
It's cool to destroy social trust, to deny it and abandon it. The counterargument is right in front of your nose - the incredible, infinite, world-changing world of FOSS. Think of all those amazing projects, social trust working over and over and over.
You're going to throw all that out over one guy? The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.
This is not what I meant. But I prefer a fork of an abandoned project which needs to gain new trust to be installed instead of a new release pushed through an auto update after 3 years that installs malware.
The parent comment was not about someone from the community taking over (which to be honest was the case in the xz story) but about posting the project on a „projects without maintenance“ site for any random person to take control.
That all makes sense. I agree about the fork.
Yeah, we always knew there were. Open source can't stop existing because there are bad actors.
So you're saying that if projects continue choosing to sunset without handing over the keys to the kingdom, open source will stop existing?
This is simply not even close to true.
Edit: I can't reply to your reply, so here will do. You've completely ignored my main point. I get that you want projects to pass on the torch, but saying open source will otherwise die is ridiculous.
"Continue choosing to sunset"? A large amount of projects does not sunset, it gets passed on instead.