if you find out that lemmy isn’t suitable for you anymore, you suggest to use lemmy as an alternative? I’m not sure if lemmy is a valid alternative to lemmy…
It’s open source and federated. You can modify and moderate it till your hearts content. ‘lemmy’ isn’t a single thing, it’s an idea, and to quote V for Vendetta:
We are told to remember the idea, not the man, because a man can fail. He can be caught, he can be killed and forgotten, but 400 years later, an idea can still change the world.
I respect your enthusiasm, but you seem to dismiss the alternatives. Your time is limited. You can use it to improve lemmy, same as you can use to improve something else. Arguing that because it is open source and federate, one should invest their time to improve lemmy, is in result also saying one should not use that time to improve other alternatives that are open source too.
Arguing that because it is open source and federate, one should invest their time to improve lemmy, is in result also saying one should not use that time to improve other alternatives that are open source too.
I’m not making this argument, I’m just countering the assertion that there is a single “Lemmy” that can become unsuitable. When In fact it is software and a network that are both mutable.
I’m just countering the assertion that there is a single “Lemmy” that can become unsuitable
Earlier you said, that because it is open source, lemmy will always be suitable for anyome, because they can just modify it, as you say.
Modifying lemmy means, that during this time you won’t be able to modify something else, and neither does the possibility to modify something grant you the resources to actually do it. That means, in order to have lemmy suitable, you do it at the cost of dismissing alternatives.
It also misses the point, about the power lead developer hold over every lemmy instance. If you believe those developers are unfit for that position, and if that matters to you, then changing software might for some be the only solution, and that is what the question is addressing.
You’re completely right, and this issue is especially problematic and noticable with cryptocurrencies. Fortunately though you are generally not the only person who feels a certain way, and you can generally find a community of devs to make a fork. My assertion is that once the Lemmy devs start causing problems, people will make a fork of lemmy that addresses your concerns with the codebase, and because Lemmy was the most suitable before, the fork will continue to be the most suitable for a while. At that point “what is Lemmy” becomes a semantic argument.
But why should I want a fork of lemmy when I prefer to have a fork of https://postmill.xyz/?
I prefer the design of postmil over the design of lemmy. There are things I dislike with lemmy, there are things I dislike about postmil. I don’t want a fork of lemmy, I want a fork of postmil.
To another instance…
if you find out that lemmy isn’t suitable for you anymore, you suggest to use lemmy as an alternative? I’m not sure if lemmy is a valid alternative to lemmy…
It’s open source and federated. You can modify and moderate it till your hearts content. ‘lemmy’ isn’t a single thing, it’s an idea, and to quote V for Vendetta:
I respect your enthusiasm, but you seem to dismiss the alternatives. Your time is limited. You can use it to improve lemmy, same as you can use to improve something else. Arguing that because it is open source and federate, one should invest their time to improve lemmy, is in result also saying one should not use that time to improve other alternatives that are open source too.
I’m not making this argument, I’m just countering the assertion that there is a single “Lemmy” that can become unsuitable. When In fact it is software and a network that are both mutable.
Earlier you said, that because it is open source, lemmy will always be suitable for anyome, because they can just modify it, as you say.
Modifying lemmy means, that during this time you won’t be able to modify something else, and neither does the possibility to modify something grant you the resources to actually do it. That means, in order to have lemmy suitable, you do it at the cost of dismissing alternatives.
It also misses the point, about the power lead developer hold over every lemmy instance. If you believe those developers are unfit for that position, and if that matters to you, then changing software might for some be the only solution, and that is what the question is addressing.
You’re completely right, and this issue is especially problematic and noticable with cryptocurrencies. Fortunately though you are generally not the only person who feels a certain way, and you can generally find a community of devs to make a fork. My assertion is that once the Lemmy devs start causing problems, people will make a fork of lemmy that addresses your concerns with the codebase, and because Lemmy was the most suitable before, the fork will continue to be the most suitable for a while. At that point “what is Lemmy” becomes a semantic argument.
But why should I want a fork of lemmy when I prefer to have a fork of https://postmill.xyz/?
I prefer the design of postmil over the design of lemmy. There are things I dislike with lemmy, there are things I dislike about postmil. I don’t want a fork of lemmy, I want a fork of postmil.
I’m not saying what you should do, I’m saying what I would do =/
You mean my question is always invalid when tested by reality?
uh, no. your question seems to imply that there is one “lemmy”, when in fact “lemmy” is whatever you want it to be.