Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Frankly, depending on the nature of the product, that is the best option.

Projects with small teams who have programmers as audiences can reasonably target POSIX and let their users work out their personal issues themselves. If they are using something particularly weird, that is their own damn fault and they should take responsibility for that. If not, chances are they won't have a problem.

Running HP-UX with a GNU Hurd kernel on your toaster? Fix it yourself. Sure, I'm sure autotools could cover that situation, but seriously, just fix it yourself.




It's fine to have a limit to what you'll support, but please lose the arrogance and condescension. A user's choice of OS is made based on a number of concerns, some of which he has no control over. Disparaging his choice or saying it's their own damn fault or "fix it yourself" is incredibly rude, especially when you can tactfully say "We currently support the following systems:" or "We currently only support systems that can run autotools, which includes the following popular operating systems:" and maybe even add "Code contributions to expand support are of course welcome!"

That's a damn sight nicer than "but seriously, just fix it yourself."


Sorry, the 'arrogance/condescension' comes from the remembered horror of having to deal with autotools too many times. Repeatedly among the most unpleasant experiences with technology I've ever had.

I don't think it is fair to accuse me of "blaming the user", as though that were horrific and plainly wrong, just because I want nothing to do with that nonsense again.


"Sorry, the 'arrogance/condescension' comes from the remembered horror of having to deal with autotools too many times."

That is a valid feeling, but it does not excuse arrogant or condescending behavior. It's not the user's fault that you've had these experiences; you just ended up working with a painful tool. Moving on and refusing to work with it again is perfectly fine. Blaming the users for your misery is not.

"I don't think it is fair to accuse me of "blaming the user", as though that were horrific and plainly wrong, just because I want nothing to do with that nonsense again."

I accused you of blaming the user because of comments such as "If they are using something particularly weird, that is their own damn fault"

Separate the problem from the people, because the people you're attacking are not responsible for your pain.


I apologize if my tone has particularly bothered you, but I don't think that I have done anybody any harm. I'm not going to apologize for it any more than that.

Anyway, I think we have misunderstood each other.

> "I accused you of blaming the user because of comments such as "If they are using something particularly weird, that is their own damn fault""

I agree with you there. I am blaming the user.

Where we differ is that I have, with admittedly strong words, objected to the implication that blaming the user is inherently wrong or bad to do.

There is a certain amount of work I am willing do to for the sake of the user with use-cases dissimilar to my own. If I'm on linux, and inotify seems like the best too for the job, I'll either abstain from using it, or use it but make an attempt to cover other common possibilities. I think it is my responsibility as a developer to think of others to this degree, if I am simultaneously not following standards and not making concessions, then I am not being fair.

Using autotools is way over that helpfulness threshold though. If that much effort is involved then I am sorry, but I expect the user to do some legwork themselves.




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: