we're trying to build something that lasts, which is strictly at odds with the corporate goal of selling something new all the time

Irenes (many)

those things are fundamentally incompatible. we cannot do both. we need to let go of the idea that we can do both.

William D. Jones

@ireneista https://mastodon.social/@cr1901/113336633105214308 I guess I _did_ elaborate after all :D!

Irenes (many)

@cr1901 oo indeed

William D. Jones

@ireneista https://mastodon.social/@cr1901/107497706130259368 Part 2/4

Irenes (many)

@cr1901 oh yep, we agree with that and we've written about it before

William D. Jones

@ireneista https://mastodon.social/@cr1901/111043788629043480 Part 3/4
https://mastodon.social/@cr1901/111043802175845614 Part 3.5/4

Irenes (many)

@cr1901 we encourage not worrying about intent with these things. it's very unlikely to be provable and it's beside the point. what we need to do differently is, like... not architect and standardize stuff in a context that gives a voice to megacorps, and be vigilant about saying no to endless growth. that's true regardless of whether this consolidation was somebody's plan, or just an emergent phenomenon.

William D. Jones

@ireneista I'd like to not worry about intent. But ppl seem happy to give emergent complexity a pass in software projects if the project's goals align with theirs while the complexity emerges, so the distinction is useful to me.

I see a lot of people (rightfully so) worrying about the web browser, and not so much e.g. if LLVM got a malicious steward. Which I don't actually know if a new LLVM competitor is viable. I can't do it- at least not rn. Doesn't mean others can't.

William D. Jones

@ireneista (Technically GCC's backend ilangs are the competitor/alternative. But I get the vibe that due to licensing and RMS's shadow, a lot of people wish GCC would Just Go Away and we were only left with LLVM.)

Ariadne Conill 🐰:therian:

@cr1901 @ireneista from a technical POV, i actually prefer working with GCC far more than LLVM