[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Debian is testing Discourse



	Hi.

On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 07:32:56AM -0500, Nate Bargmann wrote:
> I doubt that Russ reads this list and may not be aware of the
> experiences of us that have dealt with a project that wholesale replaced
> working mailing lists with Discourse.  Russ should be made aware that
> Discourse is not some magic software that does not require any learning.

That's I agree with.


> On the contrary, it is different and requires a modern Web browser (how
> does the non-GUI user participate since it is noted that an email user
> is a distant second-class user?) but as he notes it is a centralized
> database that facilitates an amount of control that is lacking with
> email lists.  I think that the key to the discussion is that some people
> seek greater control over discussions.

Moreover, it brings two interesting aspects of the problem:

1) By its design the Discourse relies on Javascript executing in user's
browser. While Discourse itself may be the free software, such usage of
Discourse violates Software Freedom 1 ("change it so it does your
computing as you wish").

2) Centralization vs federation.
By its very design e-mail is de-centralized, and it allowed it to
successfully function for about 40 years.
Moreover, such decentralization actually empowers the end user (i.e. all
of us), because "your MTA - your rules".

But Discourse is centralized, and while I trust Debian project to make
the OS that I use daily (and strongly prefer to others), this move
strips end users of that limited power that they have here, at
debian-user.


> If the project wants to implement Discourse as an adjunct to existing
> communications channels, fine, I've no problem with that.

I don't feel easy while reminding it (), but Debian project has its
share of proposing alternatives (GNOME vs XFCE, systemd vs upstart vs
sysvinit for instance), which somehow ended with the majority of the
users using only one alternative.

And note that there were totally objective reasons for that, and users
were left with the final choice. Just like this time.

Reco


Reply to: