On top of what you mentioned I also dislike the TSA-like response the OSS community is taking with this happen stance.

I have anonomously contributed to many projects because I enjoy my privacy. All of my founding projects have also been done with anonymity.

Because someone wants their anonmity and privacy does not mean they're nefarious, and I find it funny the group that takes to these principals most is negging on those ideas.

Personally, I do find it hard to trust an open source project maintained by an anonymous person. (I'm talking about maintainership, not regular contributions that need to be code reviewed by another maintainer) I may toy around with them but I will probably not use them in a manner where I need to trust them continuously.

It's totally cool for you to do whatever you want, since it's a free world after all, but if you want other people to use your code, then it's a two-way street no? Your code has a direct effect on their computers, and so they are placing their trust on you. You may value your privacy, but you need to balance that with other people's valuing their own security, and it's likely that whatever project you maintain may have an alternative as well.

If you just want to commit some code and not have people use them then that's another issue altogether.

I guess what I'm saying is: it's a two-way street. You can do things anonymously, but big companies / projects also don't have an obligation to use your code.

> You can do things anonymously, but big companies / projects also don't have an obligation to use your code.

You're not wrong here, but I'm not forcing anyone to use my code bases or contributions.

Also, think about how many systems you blindly trust on a daily basis.

When you drive over a bridge, did you research the maitenance procedures and compliance was up to date?

When you got a house or apartment, did you look into the engineering sign offs and construction companies? And that maitenance has been done up to snuff? Even down to hoping the inspector knows what they're doing?

When you step into an elevator do you check the recent inspection plaque?

When you get on an airplane are you aware of its maitenance history? And to further my point by refering back to the house example, did the company even QA the plane before they shipped it?

And most importantly, did you check into whether the people actually did these things versus just saying they did them?

What kind of trust does having a persons name attached to the project actually provide? I would argue its a psuedo-facade trust basis that gives a false sense of security.

The truth of the matter is that you blindly trust millions of things on a daily basis. Including the very system you type from, which I guaruntee you has more than one anonymous maitainer attached to its underlying software.

I totally get where you're coming from, but the same problems exist in every industry, supply, politics, every facet of your life is based on many blind trust principles.

The one difference here with anonymous open source contributors is that they give you the code to read through yourself (and hope that you help ;) )

Very much unlike the proprietary software you're running beside it.

I have Facebook and the account and what's on it is no one's -ing business in a professional context.

I wouldn't post anything on Facebook (or on social media generally) that could be professionally embarrassing but I also don't generally accept invites from people who are solely professional acquaintances or use it in a purely professional context at all.

> I wouldn't post anything on Facebook (or on social media generally) that could be professionally embarrassing

The age of self censorship :)

I don't post anything on my FB. I'd still reject any employer who wanted to take a look.

Self-censorship is probably a good thing in many cases. And there are certainly things I don't care to share in writing on any public or semi-public medium.

But I agree that even if I can't keep an employer from sleuthing generally, I don't consider Facebook part of my professional record even if there's nothing on there I'd have a problem with a co-worker or potential co-worker seeing.

>> what's on it is no one's -ing business in a professional context.

> The age of self censorship :)

I find this amusing.

I would also like to know what you hoped to achieve by self censoring the word fucking in your message above.

- HN doesn't block posts with any kind of "profanity" filter

- You didn't spare anyone from the profanity, since we all knew exactly what you were saying/thinking

So I'm really curious what that actually achieved.

That one amuses me because of a character in a (iirc) fantasy book that swore all the time but used just -ing everywhere. Sadly I don’t remember what character of which book…

It's Mr Tulip, of Terry Pratchett's The Truth.

Thank you! I was pretty sure it was Pratchett (but not which book and character) but I self censored in case i was wrong :)

Also this can all be faked