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

321–330 of 528 posts

Re: Who controls glibc?

#321

Post by TeMPOraL »

davexunit wrote: post #164

RMS needs to be removed from his dictator position in GNU. This is just one of many times that he has hurt a GNU project. He has held many projects back because he is so behind the times and stubborn, not to mention holding the FSF back. This behavior isn't limited to mailing lists, either. He breaks LibrePlanet conference rules every year to interject and rant during talks he disagrees with. I appreciate him for fou…

Basically, he started a political project that produces software furthering his political views. You like the software, but dislike the politics, so you want to take the software and get rid of politics.

The more I read the views like that, the more I understand GNU's insistence on GPL and copyright sign-offs for contributions. For instance, GPL's whole point is to prevent you from taking the software and removing the politics.

Re: Who controls glibc?

#322

Post by TeMPOraL »

jkFeiwi wrote: post #257
slededit wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Jokes may be fun to write. But when you're scouring a manual for a needed function, and you're confronted with a smarmy joke, it probably won't be as fun (especially if you're reading the manual to troubleshoot something.)

It's in a separate box at the end of the manual for that function. It's generally like a footnote. It being there shouldn't distract or hurt you in any way.

Re: Who controls glibc?

#323

Post by ocdtrekkie »

icebraining wrote: post #308
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Count for what? Should it excuse his behavior? Should we excuse the behavior of famous and notable people because of their accomplishments?

I don't think it's a matter of excusing , it's whether he has ultimate authority based on the fact that he created glibc and he's the head of GNU. Talking about excusing assumes he did something wrong, which is jumping the gun, since that's exactly what's being discussed.

I have a hard time seeing where he did something right here. He is behaving like a petulant child because people didn't find his joke funny two decades later.

He is the "boss". No doubt about it, he is the copyright holder, everyone working on the project has surrendered copyright over to him. I've got my strong reservations on BDFLs and the way their egos get stroked, but it is what it is.

But he is not a "leader". Because a leader does not cut the legs out from under the people he delegates to run things. He has every right to insist that GNU maintains his dumb joke... and everyone who's put in all of the hard work and effort into the project over these more recent years has the absolute right to leave over it.

Re: Who controls glibc?

#324

Post by zeth___ »

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.

In the new spirit of 'liberalism', or the tumblr version of it, mentioning a traumatic event is as bad as causing the traumatic event. You can't mention rape because it might trigger someone, it doesn't matter if you are excusing it, or demanding harsher punishments for it.

Unless you've been on a collage campus in the last 10 years you don't know how insane the movement is. Calling it 'liberal' is complete wrong because it is illiberal in the extreme and makes people take the side of authoritarians who want to remove all wrong think from the world.

In short: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQ5YU_spBw0

Re: Who controls glibc?

#325

Post by eesmith »

jsmthrowaway wrote: post #186
tptacek wrote: post #173

Lots of people seem to be rooting around like truffle hogs looking for the partisan politics embedded in this story, but you won't find any. The conflict happening here is between maintainers, who don't want a dated left-leaning joke embedded in the glibc documentation, and Stallman, who does. If there's "political correctness" involved, it's right-leaning. But, as a left-leaning pro-choice person: there's no "politi…

I’m much more concerned about him playing the “childbirth is far more traumatic than having an abortion” card in the discussion about the patch. Until this moment, I wasn’t even aware that was a card. It’s difficult to fathom the logic that would arrive at that statement making sense to someone typing it, particularly a person who will never experience the situations upon which he’s speaking conclusively. You’re righ…

"It’s difficult to fathom the logic that would arrive at that statement making sense to someone typing it"

In https://stallman.org/articles/children.html Stallman describes "Why it is important not to have children."

I can easily see "don't have children because it's a traumatic experience" as fitting on the list.

Among other things, btw, he says that his decision to not have children opened up time to work on GNU and free software.

Re: Who controls glibc?

#326

Post by osmala »

Well it is free so people have freedom to edit and have a repository of free software without jokes. But nobody has right to demand what goes to someone else's repository.

If glibc maintainers choose to make their own repository which Stallman has has no right demand anything they are free to do so. And then it becomes distributors freedom to choose who's repository they prefer.

Re: Who controls glibc?

#327

Post by icebraining »

lmitchell wrote: post #214
jsmthrowaway wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m much more concerned about him playing the “childbirth is far more traumatic than having an abortion” card in the discussion about the patch. Until this moment, I wasn’t even aware that was a card. It’s difficult to fathom the logic that would arrive at that statement making sense to someone typing it, particularly a person who will never experience the situations upon which he’s speaking conclusively. You’re righ…

I guess I understand the downvotes here, but I really do think you've hit on at least an issue. Maybe not the issue, but it's a pretty big problem. RMS's conduct here is just... pretty inappropriate. Jokes about abortion, rape, race, sexual orientation, etc, etc, are not something you should be touching as the maintainer of a public project, no matter what your opinions are or how strongly you hold them. The glibc ma…

someone who is a role model

But is he? Who considers rms as a role model generally? Barely anyone even knows his positions on anything other than software, and those are often derided. And that's on HN, where he's actually known. My colleagues wouldn't even know his name.

Re: Who controls glibc?

#328

Post by icebraining »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #323
icebraining wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's a matter of excusing , it's whether he has ultimate authority based on the fact that he created glibc and he's the head of GNU. Talking about excusing assumes he did something wrong, which is jumping the gun, since that's exactly what's being discussed.

I have a hard time seeing where he did something right here. He is behaving like a petulant child because people didn't find his joke funny two decades later. He is the "boss". No doubt about it, he is the copyright holder, everyone working on the project has surrendered copyright over to him. I've got my strong reservations on BDFLs and the way their egos get stroked, but it is what it is. But he is not a "leader".…

Oh, I don't disagree. I just don't think we have anything to excuse, that's between the maintainers and him.

Re: Who controls glibc?

#329

Post by SllX »

eridius wrote: post #239
jonhendry18 wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"talking about technical documentation here, which is an apolitical thing" There's no requirement of that, just like there's no requirement that technical documentation be stab-your-eyes-out dry and boring rather than having an occasional bit of humor. Apolitical technical documentation is a style choice, saying that you want to emulate a certain style of documentation.

I didn't say the technical documentation has to be completely dry and devoid of any humor. But when you're putting humor into technical documentation, you need to avoid any kind of divisive or political topic. The worst response to the humor you put in there should a groan.

I would argue that the texinfo documentation is not only technical documentation, but also political documentation with a cultural legacy.

RMS started the FSF for political reasons, as a reaction to the sudden intersection of code sharing, business and copyright law. Not only was it not in any way separate from RMS' political views, but it is in fact entirely an expression of them down to texinfo and his uncompromising views that helped spawn an entire culture around Free Software.

There are those that would like to separate and divide these from what they see as purely technical matter, but I would argue the mistake they are making in this case is in looking at it as merely technical documentation. It is that, but it is also more than this.

Maybe I'm old fashioned in my sensibilities, but whether I agree with someone or not is immaterial, I will always appreciate being able to catch a glimpse of the human face behind their work. RMS may not be the most agreeable man on the face of the planet, but I'm inclined to respect the man's legacy and how he sees fit to leave it, particularly as he still maintains an incredibly active role in the policies of the culture he helped to shape through his Foundation.

Re: Who controls glibc?

#330

Post by ubernostrum »

bhhaskin wrote: post #290
ubernostrum wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish I could make RMS, and you, and everyone who agrees with you, live in a sort of reverse-Kantian world, where whatever you advocate for as acceptable behavior when you do it becomes a universal law of conduct for other people to use when interacting with you. No matter how much of a "thick skin" you may think you have, I'd lay money that in a world which truly worked this way, you'd last under an hour before aba…

You should practice what you preach, because your statement doesn't make me feel very welcome or safe right now. You seem to make a lot of assumptions about me and the world I live in. I just said I agree with RMS on this, and you straight up attacked me personally.

I just said I agree with RMS on this, and you straight up attacked me personally.

The worst thing I would wish on you is for you to live a while in a world run according to your own espoused values.

If you feel that's an attack, it's a problem with your values.

(at least, that's how I think I'm supposed to respond here, since people aren't supposed to "feel attacked" or "get offended" by such things, apparently)

Post reply on HN