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

241–250 of 528 posts

Re: Who controls glibc?

#241

Post by cwyers »

Jerry2 wrote: post #131
bjt2n3904 wrote: post #71

Never been a big fan of the "Code of Conduct" wars that seem to be going on. On the surface, yeah, it seems great. Everyone be nice and get along. But for some odd reason, the enforcement always tends to favor one side. Case in point, the pointless NodeJS TSC drama [1] from yesteryear. I don't like JS to begin with, but that makes me want to avoid the project like the plague. The problem with letting thin skinned peo…

Something more recent... CoC caused one of the top 5 LLVM developers to leave: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16980841 Unfortunately, this got censored heavily on HN. Also, Rust-lang has CoC "cops": https://www.rust-lang.org/en-US/team.html (scroll down to "moderation team"). > Responsibility: helping uphold the code of conduct That's pretty crazy!

The whole point of a code of conduct is to promote good conduct and dissuade bad conduct. What's crazy about having moderators or having their moderation standards be the code of conduct?

Re: Who controls glibc?

#242

Post by jkFeiwi »

I'm not offended by the joke at all. I'm pro choice. But I think it's unprofessional to have these kinds of jokes in an important piece of software. This sort of thing just hurts the free software movement's credibility (though not by much).

Re: Who controls glibc?

#244

Post by dec0dedab0de »

amluto wrote: post #231
dec0dedab0de wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a story because Stallman has played the "I'm the boss, you can't outvote me" card, not because anyone's in a tizzy over the politics. If you're going to pull the "I'm the boss, you can't outvote me" card, the best place to do it is somewhere trivial. Especially when you added it yourself a long time ago. Even though I would prefer some sort of vote for these things. there's no "political correctness" here at all…

>> there's no "political correctness" here at all. > Of course there is, Is anyone trying to remove apt-get moo? If the joke only showed up in some joke manpage, that would be one thing. But the joke was in a real manpage, and I think it seemed out of place regardless of one’s political leanings.

it is mentioned in --help as super cow powers, and I'm glad it is.

Re: Who controls glibc?

#245

Post by earenndil »

wyldfire wrote: post #6
LinuxBender wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know of one distro that uses muslc [0] vs. glibc and they have a wrapper that allows most build tools to work (mostly) as expected. Are there any other options? [0] - https://www.musl-libc.org/faq.html

For open source libc? musl, glibc, dietlibc, bionic are the only I know of. The supported targets vary widely among these, though.

There is the freebsd libc; they run their own.

Re: Who controls glibc?

#246

Post by jkFeiwi »

slededit wrote: post #21

I don't really get this "joke" but man do I hate the trend of removing any personality from code. Programming used to be FUN and a way to express yourself. Easter eggs exemplified this. Now its cold and business only.

This isn't an easter egg, nor a comment in the code. It's dab smack in the manual. Could distract or confuse someone just trying to look up a function. I say we keep the fun expression stuff in places where it won't get in the user's way of doing their job.

Re: Who controls glibc?

#247

Post by dec0dedab0de »

lakechfoma wrote: post #237
dec0dedab0de wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a story because Stallman has played the "I'm the boss, you can't outvote me" card, not because anyone's in a tizzy over the politics. If you're going to pull the "I'm the boss, you can't outvote me" card, the best place to do it is somewhere trivial. Especially when you added it yourself a long time ago. Even though I would prefer some sort of vote for these things. there's no "political correctness" here at all…

How is moo related to political correctness? Doesn't it just ask if you've mooed today? That's an innocent joke that you never need to stumble upon. Joking about social/religious/political topics in deep technical docs is something else entirely, unless I'm missing something about moo.

I brought up moo because it is not related to political correctness.

EDIT: If you're not a native speaker, I'll try to explain it better. First I quoted the statement that it was not about political correctness. This indicates that the next line is in direct response. Then I wrote "of course there is" Which is to say that of course the comment in the original post was about political correctness. Then I gave the example of apt-get moo as a joke that is very public, and not political at all, to point out that nobody wants to get rid of it.

Re: Who controls glibc?

#248

Post by slededit »

quotemstr wrote: post #225
slededit wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Money has always been around, but even "corporate" was not nearly as stifling. 90s era Microsoft code is quite colorful - as I'm sure it would have been at most other companies of the era.

Even today, the Windows source code contains quite a few long, narrative comments that are both historically educational and entertaining to read.

Shortly before I left someone on the coding standards committee espoused the idea that good code was code where you couldn't tell who wrote it. I feel as though the last vestiges of the BillG era died that day.

Re: Who controls glibc?

#249

Post by slededit »

jkFeiwi wrote: post #246
slededit wrote: post #21

I don't really get this "joke" but man do I hate the trend of removing any personality from code. Programming used to be FUN and a way to express yourself. Easter eggs exemplified this. Now its cold and business only.

This isn't an easter egg, nor a comment in the code. It's dab smack in the manual. Could distract or confuse someone just trying to look up a function. I say we keep the fun expression stuff in places where it won't get in the user's way of doing their job.

Manuals used to be fun too - except for IBM's, those were never fun.

Re: Who controls glibc?

#250

Post by dec0dedab0de »

scottie_m wrote: post #234
dec0dedab0de wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a story because Stallman has played the "I'm the boss, you can't outvote me" card, not because anyone's in a tizzy over the politics. If you're going to pull the "I'm the boss, you can't outvote me" card, the best place to do it is somewhere trivial. Especially when you added it yourself a long time ago. Even though I would prefer some sort of vote for these things. there's no "political correctness" here at all…

It seems like a really silly hill to die on, but then this whole debate seems like a boring pissing match. My only thought on finishing the article was, “what a waste of my time this was,” and that was just reading it, not living it. Maybe there’s some strategic value to making a big deal of something trivial like this, but I don’t see it. I just come away from this thinking Stallman is a controlling, thin-skinned, d…

* I couldn’t care less about the politics, it’s the personality that’s offensive.*

Fair enough, though for me the personality is what I like. It's the same way I feel about ESR, even if I don't agree with whatever point is being made, I enjoy intelligent outspoken brashness.

Post reply on HN