思考与写作gist.github.com编辑精选
开源不是关于你
Open Source is Not About You
2018 — 2022，它一次次回到首页
黑点是上首页（≥ 50 分）的那次投稿，空心点是没冲上去的投稿，点越大分数越高。
导读
Rich Hickey 的文章主张开源作品是无附加条件的礼物：维护者不对用户的需求、抱怨或参与开发的要求负责，参与者应认识到这一点。文中还指出创作者士气被侵蚀是真实问题，并呼吁重新审视对开源的先入之见。
为什么经久不衰：它精炼地提出了开源维护者与使用者之间的边界问题，因此在开源可持续性和社区伦理讨论中反复被引用，今天读来仍有现实意义。
HN 评论精选
文章背后是 Clojure 社区中贡献者与维护者之间的真实摩擦。
虽然 Rich 说得对，但读起来令人难受，因为这反映了 Clojure 社区的一些争议。他可能是在回应 Chas Emericks 的推文。Chas 并非普通路人，他为 Clojure 生态做了大量免费贡献，他的离开令人遗憾。这就像父母争吵，你两边都喜欢，只希望他们停止争吵。
newcrobuzon查看英文原文
Though Rich is right, it pains me to read this because it is indicative of some disputes in the clojure community. I might be mistaken, but it seems that Rich is reacting to Chas Emericks' twitter post (https://twitter.com/cemerick/status/1067111260611850240). In his comments he has stated: "Finally, from a practical perspective, my core-level contributions always came from some source of pressing need in an actual, present, needs-to-work project. If I know a problem isn't going to be triaged for months and solved for years, then I'm out." So this is not some grieving random person from crowd - Chas is a person whose libraries and contributions I value tremendously and he certainly made LOTS of contributions to clojure OSS landscape for free and out of his good will as well. So ultimately this feels like your parents are arguing (which is never a good thing) - you like them both and you just want the arguing to stop and you just want everybody to live together in harmony. But here you go, Chas has moved away from clojure now. And I have to say I am very sorry to see him go.
区分自由软件与开源：开源不承诺社区义务，自由软件才强调回馈。
这篇文章出色地描绘了“自由软件”与“开源”作为意识形态框架的区别。作为许可证它们相同，但开源止于许可证。自由软件运动强调用户和社区优先、回馈社区，因此自由软件是关于你的。开源运动受益于自由软件精神。
geofft查看英文原文
This is an excellent depiction of the distinction between "free software" and "open source" as ideological frameworks. As licensing schemes, they're the same - but open source ends at the licensing scheme, as the author correctly points out. If you want to use it for a side project, great. If you want to use it to make money, great. If you want to use it to commoditize the operating system for your worldwide advertising infrastructure, great. If you want to embed it in your iOS app or in iOS itself (and the license permits doing so), great. The free software movement, however, says things like this (from https://www.debian.org/social_contract ): Our priorities are our users and free software. We will be guided by the needs of our users and the free software community. We will place their interests first in our priorities. We will give back to the free software community. In other words, free software is about you. I would quibble with the claim that the open-source process is what produced Clojure in the first place. The open source movement has benefited from sailing in the same direction as the free software movement and using the same tailwinds. Without the free software ethos (which was behind GNU as well as a lot of the Lisp work at MIT), would Clojure have been able to stand on the same shoulders, and would it have attracted the community of users and the ecosystem of libraries it has?
Clojure 的库扩展性让用户能更容易地按需修改语言，而不影响核心。
之前有一次提交有很多好讨论。个人主要收获是 Clojure（和其他 Lisp）处于独特位置：语言增补可以作为库完成，而不必改核心。其他语言不总有这种可能，比如 TypeScript 用户要么推动核心语言修改，要么忍受或 fork。
capableweb查看英文原文
One submission in the past with lots of good discussions: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18538123 | 734 points | 2018 | 281 comments One of the main takeaways personally from this post, is the unique position Clojure (and other lisps) are in, where language additions can be done as libraries instead of changing the core of the language. Other languages don't (always) have this possibility. Taking TypeScript as one example. If 20% of users want to be able to do something in TypeScript that the language doesn't support, they either can try to get the change into the core language, or live without it (or fork it). If it changes, it'll change for everyone using TypeScript But in Clojure (lisps in general), you don't have this restriction, so modifying the language for your own need, becomes a lot easier. Lots of work on Clojure is simply done in libraries, as it's possible and doesn't impact the core of the language, which everyone shares.
批评文章混淆了项目治理与开源定义，开源许可证本身赋予用户修改和分发权。
尽管尊重 Rich Hickey，但很难说这篇有什么正面意义。它基本与开源无关，完全是他如何运行自己项目的问题。开源不是“给你什么你就拿什么”的礼物；你有权获得源码、修改和分发。是否有权参与开发过程取决于项目规则，与开源无关，所以全文作为对开源的评论大多说不通。
bachmeier查看英文原文
As much as I respect Rich Hickey, it's hard to say anything positive about this. It has basically nothing to do with open source. It's entirely specific to how he chooses to run his own projects. Open source is not a gift in the sense that you "get what they give you". You are entitled to the source code. You are entitled to modify the code. You are entitled to distribute your modifications. Are you entitled to be part of the development process and to state your opinions about how things are going? Yes...if those are the rules of the project. The thing is, that has nothing to do with open source, it's always project-specific, so the full post largely doesn't make any sense as a comment on open source.
历次讨论
同类还值得读
保持你的身份认同足够小
Keep Your Identity Small (2009)
Paul Graham 2009 年的一篇短文：人一旦把某个话题当成自己身份的一部分（宗教、政治、编程语言皆然），讨论就会退化成站队和争吵，因为此时争论的不再是事实，而是"我是谁…
思考与写作上首页 5 次 · 2009–2021paulgraham.com编辑精选苏格拉底式教学法：通过提问而非讲授来教学
The Socratic Method: Teaching by Asking Instead of by Telling
记录了作者用纯提问的方式，引导一群小学生从零推导出二进制计数法的课堂实验，展示了苏格拉底式教学法的惊人效果。
思考与写作上首页 5 次 · 2011–2022garlikov.com你不能说的话
What You Can't Say (2004)
Paul Graham 2004 年的经典文章，探讨那些因道德时尚而不能公开说出的观点。
思考与写作上首页 5 次 · 2014–2022paulgraham.com编辑精选龙暴君的寓言（2005）
The Fable of the Dragon-Tyrant (2005)
哲学家 Nick Bostrom 于 2005 年写的一则寓言：一条每天吞噬数千人的巨龙（隐喻死亡与衰老）长期被人类当作不可抗拒的自然规律接受，直到有人提出并最终用导弹将其杀死，…
思考与写作上首页 5 次 · 2009–2021nickbostrom.com编辑精选现实有着惊人的细节量
Reality has a surprising amount of detail (2017)
2017 年的博文指出，现实远比我们以为的充满细节：我们习惯用简化的心智模型看世界，直到真正动手做事（比如作者举的造楼梯例子）才发现处处是未曾预料的细节。
思考与写作上首页 4 次 · 2018–2025johnsalvatier.org编辑精选