Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Who controls glibc?

lwn.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 528 posts

Re: Who controls glibc?

#121

Post by dragonwriter »

johannes1234321 wrote: post #111
readme wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Excellent idea! Just rename it political-libc for all the people who want politics mixed in with their C library.

The FSF and its GNU project are a political endeavor. For a less-political (non-political doesn't exist) libc one might fork into linux-libc or similar. (I'm not saying that's appropriate thing to do, as I'm just a lurker enjoying the free work by others in glibc's regard, but wanted to make the point)

> The FSF and its GNU project are a political endeavor.

But neither has anything about abortion policy in it's public declaration of goals.

So, while some political messages might make sense in GNU technical docs, I don't see why a warning making an oblique reference to the Mexico City policy is not only acceptable but so critical that central leadership needs to overrule the specific project's maintainers to preserve it.

Re: Who controls glibc?

#122

Post by smsm42 »

bhhaskin wrote: post #97
matthewbauer wrote: post #87

So what annoys me about this discussion is that both sides are not being very honest. Calling it an "abortion joke" is to me highly misleading. It's an "abortion law joke" & has nothing to do with the procedure of abortion! The people arguing against it seem to be implying its much more inappropriate than it is. Anyway, no where in the article is the actual "joke" mentioned. So I'd like to include it here just so peo…

I agree with RMS on this. People need to grow up. It's ok to be offended, but not ok to try and correct everyone just because you are offended. A line needs to be drawn somewhere and this is harmless.

This is harmless - probably true, nobody would die or suffer harm from having irrelevant content in the manual. We could splice full seven books of Harry Potter into it, and provided it is clearly marked up, it won't cause any serious harm. But glibc technical manuals are not exactly the place for RMS - or anybody else - to wage political advocacy campaigns, criticize US federal government or joke on the topics unrelated to the technical content. It's not harmful (which is a very high bar), but it's also not appropriate. Do we want to see political debate and advocacy in glibc manuals, commit messages, code comments and other places? Probably not. There are ample venues for this - and especially for a person with the name recognition RMS deservedly enjoys - to advocate anything he likes. He doesn't need the venue of glibc manuals for that, and shouldn't use it.

Re: Who controls glibc?

#123

Post by bitwize »

geofft wrote: post #62
bitwize wrote: post #35

Given his penchant for offensive, inappropriate humor, and how little tolerance the modern FOSS community has for such in the prevailing political atmosphere, this is not a hill RMS wants to die on. Save the rank pulls for something really important, Richard.

It is a little interesting to me that the joke in question is making fun of a US-right-wing political position, so the fact that it's clear to everyone that this atmosphere disagrees with the joke would seem to remove some credence from the "FOSS is turning into a liberal echo chamber" argument that's been getting popular. There is a political shift / push happening, but "liberal echo chamber" isn't it.

You don't have to disagree with Stallman on abortion in order to find his humor tasteless and inappropriate for product documentation. Pulling rank as GNU project leader for the sake of a tasteless joke is squandering your moral authority, I think, and he may need it for a time when, say, a state actor tries to sneak nefarious code into glibc.

Re: Who controls glibc?

#125

Post by smsm42 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #58
RIMR wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or, if you're going to be subtly political (as GNU often is), at least be current. That joke was 20-something years old. It ran its course. Also, as far as calling LGBT rainbows "political", I would have to disagree. You either view LBGT people as equal, or you can be a hateful person. There's no good reason to pander to the latter, but plenty of reasons to stand up in unity with the former. There are some concepts t…

It's kinda evergreen, as the global gag rule is, to notable controversy, retracted or reinstated with each change in Presidential party since Reagan, most recently reinstated last year by the Trump Administration. Of course, it's still inappropriate for glibc docs.

What's the global gag rule you are referring to?

Re: Who controls glibc?

#126

Post by flukus »

geofft wrote: post #109
bhhaskin wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with RMS on this. People need to grow up. It's ok to be offended, but not ok to try and correct everyone just because you are offended. A line needs to be drawn somewhere and this is harmless.

Nobody who removed the joke said they were offended by it, they just said that they didn't believe it was the sort of thing that belonged in technical documentation. If anyone is offended, it is RMS, in the sense that he seems personally affronted that he doesn't carry the line-item veto power he thinks he had over all of GNU and people did not ask him before removing something he added 25 years ago. Not everyone who…

> they just said that they didn't believe it was the sort of thing that belonged in technical documentation

I've been dreading the day OSS projects became as soulless and boring as corporate ones. If we can't have jokes in technical documentation then it seems that day has come.

Next the FOSS HR department will be asking them to rename the abort function.

Re: Who controls glibc?

#127

Post by drb91 »

scrollaway wrote: post #68
drb91 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I follow. What's wrong with his term? Either people get what he's writing, and the term is irrelevant, or they don't get what he's writing, in which case I doubt that it would be because they were so distracted by a single word they couldn't focus on anything he's writing at all. So you just don't like the term. This is fine! But you've failed to make any point.

> in which case I doubt that it would be because they were so distracted by a single word they couldn't focus on anything he's writing at all Well, you'd be wrong then. It's like people writing "Micro$oft". No I can't focus on anything you're writing after you use terms like that because I'm picturing an immature child. And why would I listen to an immature child's arguments? Put it this way, it's like giving a talk…

I don’t think RMS is trying to cater towards your needs, though. You’re perfectly capable of understanding him; it’s an (understandable) choice that you don’t put the effort into getting through the distractions. I don’t see anything wrong with expressing yourself in a preferred way, damn if it actually persuaded anyone.

I mean, it’s the same deal with an open fly. You get out of that experience what you look for. Most people can’t see past the fly, and that’s fine.

It’s so silly talking about this Facebook essay like an argument or a persuasive essay when it’s so much more similar to art or entertainment. Either you get it or your grandkids do, and it doesn’t mean you have to marry them or even agree with them to appreciate the cultural expression.

Re: Who controls glibc?

#128

Post by smsm42 »

drb91 wrote: post #49
thsowers wrote: post #39

While RMS has undoubtedly contributed much to the FOSS community, he seems to undermine some of his core points with trivial matters. For example, his piece "Reasons not to use Facebook"[0] contains some great points, but I find them undermined by the unnecessary usage of the word "useds" Similarly, this seems like an extremely trival case to "exercise my authority over Glibc very rarely" as he puts it. [0]: https://…

I'm not sure I follow. What's wrong with his term? Either people get what he's writing, and the term is irrelevant, or they don't get what he's writing, in which case I doubt that it would be because they were so distracted by a single word they couldn't focus on anything he's writing at all. So you just don't like the term. This is fine! But you've failed to make any point.

The wrong is an obnoxious manner of redefining communication protocols (in this case, language) in order to support the premise that the author is always right. In this example, the premise is that Facebook users (standard and accepted term) do not derive any benefit from Facebook but are only exploited by it. This is obviously false, since if people did not derive any benefit from it, they would not voluntarily flock to it in millions. But by refusing to even admit this possibility and constantly hammering this mistake into the reader, Stallman tries to reinforce his (weak) point by repetition, not relying on cognitive facilities of the reader being enough to get this point without it being repeated 60 times. I don't know about you, but for me it's annoying and obnoxious when even true point is repeated to me 60 times through a short text. Even more annoying if the point itself is so trivially weak.

Re: Who controls glibc?

#129

Post by justonepost »

8_hours_ago wrote: post #120
RIMR wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with RMS's pro-choice opinion, but I honestly see no reason a 20-something year old joke about abortion needed to remain in the documentation. The consensus was that it be removed. It was removed. Just because HMS is a FOSS legend doesn't make him God.

> Just because RMS is a FOSS legend doesn't make him God. According to RMS he does have ultimate authority over all GNU packages, including Glibc: https://lwn.net/Articles/753661/

He probably owns some root certs. Likely if he were to start exercising such authority without being an active developer, there would be a fork soon enough.

Isn't that what happened to emacs?

Re: Who controls glibc?

#130

Post by sitepodmatt »

flukus wrote: post #126
geofft wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody who removed the joke said they were offended by it, they just said that they didn't believe it was the sort of thing that belonged in technical documentation. If anyone is offended, it is RMS, in the sense that he seems personally affronted that he doesn't carry the line-item veto power he thinks he had over all of GNU and people did not ask him before removing something he added 25 years ago. Not everyone who…

> they just said that they didn't believe it was the sort of thing that belonged in technical documentation I've been dreading the day OSS projects became as soulless and boring as corporate ones. If we can't have jokes in technical documentation then it seems that day has come. Next the FOSS HR department will be asking them to rename the abort function.

The day went and passed a few years ago. SJW asswipes campaigned to have the phrased blacklist removed from projects and changed to allow list, also 'slave database' too because it could offend some dead ancestor that was a slave? These little cry babies are ruining tech, another example MS just had a tech conference with a cuddle farm, they imported animals so people could feed and cuddle them in the event any of the talks accidentally included trigger words. Don't forget crockfordgate - the javascript legend (the good parts book) who described brackets as dogballs and was mercilyless hunted by SJWs including being removed from jsconf. Sad times.
Post reply on HN