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

331–340 of 528 posts

Re: Who controls glibc?

#331

Post by smsm42 »

mycall wrote: post #253
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spot on. At the end of the day, nobody really cares about the joke, and nobody in the conversation indicated they actually were offended or upset by it, as far as I can tell. The joke will not be the downfall of glibc whether it stays or goes. But RMS' order may be. He just reminded everyone working on that project that their authority ends on any given issue wherever RMS' whims begin.

Lets think how many hours RMS has put into GNU over the years. That should count for something, no?

I thought the whole point of Free Software idea is that contributing to a software project does not make you its exclusive owner (after you released it under Free Software license) and its users subject to your whims. It is ironic that at the top of this project is a person who would very much like to subject the project to his whims, and for quite a trivial reason at that.

Re: Who controls glibc?

#332

Post by smsm42 »

PirateBay wrote: post #289
burnte wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's just RMS continuing to be an authoritarian, as he's always been. He's always been unwilling to compromise on big things, he's still unwilling to compromise on small things.

Being uncompromising in your politics and values is hardly authoritarian. RMS runs the ship and these people knew it when they started working on a GNU project, especially since it's well known RMS has shot down things he didn't like before.

> Being uncompromising in your politics and values is hardly authoritarian

In general, yes, but in this particular case it is clearly "I am the Law!" case - he's being authoritarian. And your next two sentences pretty much confirm that, even if you dismiss it with "they knew he was an authoritarian when they joined" and "he's been an authoritarian for a long time". Maybe true, but doesn't make it better.

Re: Who controls glibc?

#333

Post by smsm42 »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #307
smsm42 wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True (which is one of the reasons I don't use GPL for my personal projects) but that doesn't mean GNU technical space should be a venue for every other political discussion in the world. There are far better venues out there.

Maybe, maybe not. I think the core issue is that RMS doesn't believe in that strong "technical" vs. "political" separation - to him, the whole GNU project is a political endeavour, including all the tech in it.

> that RMS doesn't believe in that strong "technical" vs. "political" separation

I do not believe that for a second. RMS is completely capable of seeing it, and he himself on his own site has this separation, and in there's no indication he is incapable of distinguishing between UNIX API and political advocacy. He just wants to use his considerable technical capital to promote his political agenda. In places, where such promotion is not appropriate.

Re: Who controls glibc?

#334

Post by noobermin »

olliej wrote: post #112
noobermin wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This[0] is relevant. He's possibly alienating only a group of vocal people. It isn't clear form the article that it's the consensus more than it is the consensus of people in an email thread. After clicking around the mailing list, it looks more like what [0] suggests than it being a clear majority of contributors to glibc. That said, alienating anyone could be problematic. [0] https://lwn.net/Articles/753720/

That group being the maintainers?

I'll admit I'm not big into the who's who behind glibc, but I saw 4 or so people speak against it. Are those 4 the only main maintainers of glibc? Do you know?

Re: Who controls glibc?

#335

Post by DandyDev »

rurban wrote: post #311
mikekchar wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a big fan of RMS, but I've got to say "No". He's not a maintainer. He doesn't get a vote. If he wants to work his way back into that project, then I've got no problem with it. But he doesn't. It's like the CEO telling you that he wants a joke in the technical documentation for one of your libraries. They might get away with it because of their position, but it's an abuse of that position even if the CEO used to b…

He might not be the maintainer, but he is the BDFL. It's about respect. See what happened to Drepper who violated his respect. I like the joke, and I sympathize with RMS to let it in. In any case he opposed it so there is now a power struggle about the control of his project. I would love to see a better maintained glibc btw. Too much politics, not enough competence.

The dictator in question certainly doesn't seem Benevolent to me in this case.

Re: Who controls glibc?

#336

Post by smsm42 »

ajross wrote: post #193
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.

Yeah, this is one of those spots where RMS is stubbornly and stupidly standing up for principle in a context where the rest of us just clearly see that it shouldn't matter and he's just being a jerk. But... damn if he's not right about this. The joke has meaning. It still means what he meant when he wrote it. The issue is an important one (to RMS, at least). And no one else has a real argument here other than "it's u…

> And no one else has a real argument here other than "it's unprofessional and embarassing and we want it gone".

No one needs any better argument. It's unprofessional, and it's embarrassing (both as poorly executed joke and as political advocacy bolted onto the technical manual). RMS has a perfectly good personal site and lots of speaking engagements where he is very welcome to advocate whatever he likes and people are happy to see him to do just that. And nobody has a problem with it - nobody ever, as far as I know, demanded to close his site or protested him speaking anywhere, let alone demanded him to be banned. His advocacy (the fact that he's doing what he's doing) is very accepted even among people who disagree with him. However, he insists on doing in in the place where people don't want it. That's just being annoying and stubborn for no other reason but "because I want it so".

Re: Who controls glibc?

#337

Post by z3t4 »

This reminds me of a Facebook story and why they don't want browsers to have "view source". Apparently they get complains now and then after someone has accidentally got into view source. Something about appending and removing childs.

Re: Who controls glibc?

#338

Post by rtpg »

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.

If RMS wasn't the project lead, but any other maintainer, then his behavior of making such a big fuss about this particular thing (which, very importantly, _is not a very important thing!_), against the consensus of many other maintainers, is something.

If he were on the same level as other people, this behavior wouldn't be accepted. So the question then becomes:

Does the fact that he's "the boss" excuse his behavior of fighting against the consensus on an issue of this level of importance?

Re: Who controls glibc?

#339

Post by eesmith »

_8j50 wrote: post #163

Rms was in the clear wrong. This is a professional setting,that joke wasn't professional. If you wouldn't say it at a work meeting then it's probably not a good idea to say the same in a commit or a serious thread of a foss project. Although I don't like the joke,it's not so much the content of the joke but rather where the joke was spoken that seemed inappropriate. I am not offended. much like a coworker coming to w…

I have tried, but failed, to understand what "wasn't professional" means. As far as I can tell, it is a synonym for "doesn't upset the status quo."

Clearly there are work meetings where this sort of joke/commentary would be voiced. For example, the writers' room at the various satirical news shows. There are, after all, professional comedians, including those which work blue.

I've heard people say that children in the workplace isn't professional. Then I think about professional teachers and pediatricians who have children at a workplace. As a child I sometimes went with my father to his job. I don't think he was considered unprofessional for that.

I've heard people say that drinking alcohol on the job isn't professional, and that one should follow a dress code. Then I see people on the job at a conference, drinking, and at one Python conference dressed up in unicorn costume.

It's therefore very context dependent, which is why I don't think "professional" is a useful way to think about the topic.

FWIW, I had a co-worker who was topless in shorts at the office. We were coming back from lunch in a downpour one summer. He wasn't prepared for it, his shirt was sopping wet, and keeping it on was a problem in the A/C'ed room. Having his shirt off wasn't a problem, and he wasn't considered unprofessional for doing so.

That's because it didn't upset the status quo.

Re: Who controls glibc?

#340

Post by rtpg »

jonhendry18 wrote: post #201
roenxi wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technical documentation isn't the place for a joke full stop. Documentation is for people who are typically busy, uncertain and potentially dealing with something that is going wrong. They want clear, concise and accessible help. They don't want or need tasteless jokes. It is disrespectful to their time to include random garbage. This is supposed to be read by people who need it, not people who know what is going on…

"Technical documentation isn't the place for a joke full stop" This is a bad take. When wading through dry technical documentation a little humor can make it much less laborious. As long as the humor doesn't result in ambiguity, there's no problem. Something like "You can tune a filesystem, but you can't tune a fish." at the end of a manpage may elicit a chuckle but doesn't reduce understanding.

Yeah, it should probably be more

"your technical documentation should have a consistent tone"

I appreciate light-hearted asides in documentation. But more if I expect it than when it's unexpected. Like you wouldn't want to end up confusing some ESL programmer who goes ask a lawyer whether they should be worried about this?

Or if you're really ambitious, make all your docs super funny! But if you mix the tone it's disorienting and maybe bad writing.

Post reply on HN