[faho]

It doesn't outright state anywhere that it's not an official alpine product, and I don't know if everyone reads the site - many people will just copy the "FROM frolvlad/alpine-glibc" from elsewhere.

In any case, the Alpine people would know, and they apparently think it's a problem.

>Without context,

But you have context here! It has issues with symbol versioning! There is "strange behavior and possible crashes, ". This makes alpine look bad, because people think it's the alpine project's fault!

> what this guy is pissed off

Please don't assume everyone is a "guy". In this case, Ariadne is not a "he" (she uses "she"), so a male-coded word like "guy" is ill-fitting.

[im3w1l]

  FROM frolvlad/alpine-glibc

That namespacing does make it look pretty unofficial to my eyes.

[faho]

But do you know if alpine does official docker images namespaced as e.g. alpine/?

Is "alpine-glibc" an official project and someone just helpfully made the image (or an image including an official glibc package)? Or is this a prerelease?

Without a deep knowledge of alpine (or now reading this post) I couldn't answer any of these questions and I'm not sure I wouldn't try to go to alpine for bug reports. I think there's a reasonable potential for confusion, even with the namespace. (but granted, I don't use docker either, so maybe this is a common thing)

And I assume the alpine people (like the author) know that they get bug reports for it and that the issues with it cause bad publicity, and that that's the context for the post and the proposal to block the package.

[Karunamon]

The answer to the first question is an obvious yes, and it's obvious to anyone that uses Docker. No deep knowledge required.

If you want Alpine, you do FROM alpine:(version).

https://hub.docker.com/_/alpine

[ariadneconill]

The problem is the people who use Docker but don't know anything about it. Or don't know that mixing libcs is a problem. They use this glibc package, break their containers and then blame Alpine for the breakage.

[faho]

Ah, that's good to know, thanks!

[MrStonedOne]

> > what this guy is pissed off

>Please don't assume everyone is a "guy". In this case, Ariadne is not a "he" (she uses "she"), so a male-coded word like "guy" is ill-fitting.

Please do not mince words, people have a tenancy to refer to their own gender identity when referring to people who's gender identity they do not know. You knew what they meant.

from the hn guidelines:

> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

[burnished]

There Are No Women On The Internet, so they got corrected. It isn't a bad faith interpretation, more like a gentle correction.

[MrStonedOne]

"somebody using a generic is really suggesting that women don't exist on the internet" sounds exactly like a bad faith interpretation.

[burnished]

I'm having a hard time here - do you really not see the connection between what I'm saying, what you're saying, and the use of a default masculine pronoun?

[MrStonedOne]

I see the connection, what I'm suggesting is that you knew what they meant when they said guy, meaning you did not need to suggest that they thought women didn't exist on the internet, nor did you need to suggest that they were assuming everybody on the internet is a man.

Both of those statements are bad faith.

[burnished]

I don't think we're operating under the same impression of bad faith. You seem to be using it to mean "an argument or line of reasoning I don't find compelling", where I am using it to mean "bringing up a line of argument or discussion for some reason other than participating".

So to circle back around on this, some people feel like using male as the default gender is rude and exclusionary. Try assuming people are women, just as an experiment, and see what sort of push back you get. This isn't in any way a bad faith argument.