Software’s Personality Problem
Software is personal. It’s beautiful in a way. It’s an expression of how we as people create complex ways to solve problems that, typically, we create ourselves. At the same time, it’s simply a collection of tools. Defined and structured mathematically, it’s about logic. There are quite a few ways to solve the same problem, but it’s very clear that many people do not want others to find or use solutions different than their own.
This is the bridge. Between the necessity of our tools to solve the issues we have, and the obnoxiously omnipresent personality that makes it so difficult to create them. A bridge that is charred by the flames of each spiteful disagreement that blinds us to objectivity. Design philosophy is used as an excuse to dismiss the values of others. The technical capacity of the world’s most talented developers is handicapped severely by the flurry of personal feuds that leak their way into every design decision.
It’s clear to me that the core of this stems from passion. We’re invested in the things we create, and to an extent, we’re invested in the things that we use. These tools stray from simply being used, to expressing the mentality behind how and why we use them. They’re descriptive of us as individuals. We are what we do, in a sense, right? Our choices define us, even if they don’t need to. And the inherent desire to justify every decision to those around us is a natural social element.
Users become quite entrenched in their own “camps” when it comes to software selection. The easiest example to reference is the longstanding Windows vs macOS rivalry. While companies do compete and toss shade at each other, it’s their users causing most of the bloodshed. They’re part of something, and their choice is undeniably superior. Ironically, the reasons one camp sees their choice as superior is often the exact reason the other camp sees it as inferior. Strong verbiage comes into play here as “locked-down” becomes the way to dismiss what others would call “curated” or “refined”. “Chaotic” becomes the word to dismiss what others would call “flexible” or “powerful”. It’s all a game, really. But it’s a game people quite literally threaten other peoples’ lives over.
Where do the people responsible for the software itself stand? Do they all hate each other with the same, insatiable fury that their users do? I doubt it. In most circumstances, they simply just don’t need to. Beyond that, most of them really don’t want to. If there’s anything I’ve learned during my time in open source, it’s that the willingness to work together towards solutions and without intentionally sabotaging each other, is cause for success. Even though KDE and GNOME are pitted against each other by the community as two mega-forces that will always stand apart, I’ve seen many of the people involved with these projects trying very hard to find solutions that benefit both environments.
At the end of the day, developers are people just like the rest of us. Subject to the same emotional fallibility anyone else would be. There are healthy rivalries as well as unhealthy ones. The opinionated nature of it all means that developers will come to disagreements as to how to solve issues, or even what those issues are. Prominent developers are under a spotlight in a way that most people aren’t. When you represent a project, each sling of mud becomes a fully-loaded trebuchet.
Even in extremely heated circumstances, it seems most developers don’t go so far as to threaten each others’ lives, but it’s unavoidable that they’d get rather personal in their attempts to make their point heard. Much more often, these developers actively involve themselves in productive conversations with other projects. Those discussions are typically left to the quiet realms of late-night GitHub comments, rather than being sprawled out over Twitter in a frenzy of self-important media coverage.
Developers are invested in their work, as they rightfully should be. They pour their time, money, and energy into making things, and for many, they do so without being paid for it. When tensions run high, they seem to run higher than usual. When you’re attacked for your work, it cuts deep, and the response in turn is often aimed at cutting deeper. A natural, self-fulfilling cycle that exists as a protection method to avoid recognizing the damage of criticism or rejection. Yet it’s far from unusual. On a social scale, this is just being human. But as communities surround themselves with like-minded thinkers, these jabs grow in severity and importance at an unusually accelerated pace.
Perhaps it’s best to live and let be, rather than making a spectacle of it all. Agreeing or disagreeing can be left at that. It can remain based in principle rather than diminishing your personal values to the basis of which text editor is better.
It’s not easy, because we’re only human. But we can all be more tactful.
In conclusion, don’t be a dick.
