Like yeah I agree it would be wonderful to have alternatives, but it's a little dramatic to call the existence of this very small project the start of a "backlash"
No it isn't, or I wouldn't have asked. Is he mocking people who hate "online account" requirements, or supporting them?
You can't tell from "no one ever wanted their drafting table to have authentication, ACL, 2FA, or storage/backup," because those things on their own aren't inherently objectionable. Is it a sarcastic comment, or in earnest?
For anyone who has ever had the laptop out in the garage next to the CNC machine, yeah, no, those things are extremely onerous.
You're in the machine shop outside of town and you literally have everything you need locally to make the computer drive the 4000lb hunk of cast iron around to cut the hunk of metal into the shape and then when you open your laptop Fusion 360 randomly decides you're not logged in and you need to 2FA to get to your own damn data that's local to your box—except there is no cell service here.
Fuck. B-double-e-double-r-U-N beer run! Bring the laptop into town and make a hotspot at the gas station so you can get back into your damn cloud account and then drive back to the shop in the hills and finally send G-code to the mill. Using data and software you had on your laptop the whole damn time.
Looks like that cut isn't finishing up until 3am.
The point is, you're doing an activity that doesn't require the internet. When an application that provides functionality that doesn't require internet connectivity introduces a hard dependency on the internet, it's user-hating design, plain and simple.
Great, that's all the clarification I asked for. I totally agree! I detest pointless online accounts and won't even consider Web-based tools for local tasks.
Unfortunately some self-appointed spokesdouches decided to intervene and create a toxic atmosphere here before you could even answer.
Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
I asked a straightforward, sincere question and then, after being inexplicably downvoted, elaborated further.
Then THAT was downvoted, with no answer to the original question or excuse for the attacks. That kind of infantile behavior brings down the site and should be called out, which is exactly what I did.
I'm not going to pussyfoot around assholes who try to bury other users' questions or comments for no reason. Why don't you ask THOSE people why they're attacking other users?
See above where the OP eventually answered the question I asked in a totally civil and helpful manner, and all is good. I realize that moderating a Web site is a huge job; but if you're going to actually look at individual cases, go after the meddling douchebags, not the guy simply asking for clarification.
Of course—but other people breaking the rules doesn't make it ok for you to do so, right? You broke them noticeably worse than any other comment in this thread (at least that I saw), and you did it like 4 or 5 times, which is a ton. So regardless of how this spat got started, or how right your view is, your account was certainly the one which had behaved the worst by the time it was over. Blaming the community / downvoters / "Redditards" for this isn't helpful.
The basic trouble here is that when you (I don't mean you personally, but all of us) get in a tangle of disagreement with someone else, the odds that you'll feel like they are an "asshole", or "meddling douchebag", etc., get much higher.
Such perceptions are unreliable because they're mostly a byproduct of getting into an activated state, which is what happens when we get into an argument. We all know this experience, and we all feel it.
These feelings have a degrading effect on conversation if we act on them, so the basic idea of HN, as set out in https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html, is not to act on them. This takes conscious effort, but it's work we all have to do if HN is to have any chance of being interesting.
(Online arguments are bad for this because we have next to no information about each other - all we have are little globs of text that usually don't communicate intent.)
This is the root of most conflicts on HN, including the current one. You perceived your post https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37696161 as a "straightforward, sincere question" - but it doesn't read that way to me, and I'm sure not to many others either. "What's your point?" is typically a marker of hostility in conversation—it signals an adversarial intention. When you ask "what's your point?", especially if you ask it brusquely, the implication is that you don't think the other person actually has much of a point at all.
If you didn't want your question to be perceived that way, you would have needed to add disambiguating information; or, more likely, phrased it some other way than "What's your point?" Instead, though, when the other commenter answered your question, you pounced on them (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37698914) in a way that, to me at least, seemed to confirm that you were being aggressive in the first place.
I hope this comes across as helpful and not annoying because I can see it either way!
Among the nerds, the backlash has started. Watch out, Fusion 360.
In the world of doing stuff with atoms, no one ever wanted their drafting table to have authentication, ACL, 2FA, or storage/backup.