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

511–520 of 528 posts

Re: Who controls glibc?

#511

Post by dragonwriter »

labster wrote: post #509
sevensor wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm going to... stick my neck out... and venture that republics have usually got rid of their monarchs.

Har har, yeah, point taken, but many constitutional monarchies are de facto republics. The UK, Sweden, the Netherlands, Japan, Norway. I was trying to distinguish from the hereditary monarchies that aren't republican, like the People's Democratic Republic of Korea.

> Har har, yeah, point taken, but many constitutional monarchies are de facto republics.

No, they are just representative democracies. Which aren't coextensive with republics: you can be either without being the other.

Re: Who controls glibc?

#512

Post by zeth___ »

geofft wrote: post #391
zeth___ wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then you're either willfully blind, or extremely lucky. My alma mater allows talks about helping tweens transition to their preferred gender, but banned a talked by a "pickup artist" in the last 18 months. Last Thursday I looked up a dissertation from the graduate library for work and they had a sticker on every door un-ironically using "lgbtqia+ and allies". Here's another one that does the same: https://lgbtqia.ucd…

I'm not sure how any of this supports the point you're making (I believe the point you're making is "mentioning a traumatic event is as bad as causing the traumatic event" and/or "[these people are] authoritarians who want to remove all wrong think from the world"). If the point you're making is "I don't believe the concept of LGBTQIA+ and allies should exist," then yes, there would appear to be authoritarians who wa…

[flagged]

Re: Who controls glibc?

#513

Post by zeth___ »

komali2 wrote: post #488
zeth___ wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

RMS is pro voluntary pedophilia: https://www.stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html#05%20Jun... If you don't know what libertarian means you're going to have a bad time trying to apply liberal labels to people who were around the internet before tumblr.

Wonder why the above is being downvoted... verbatim from Stallman's website: >I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing. I guess context is needed here. Does he mean... like.. 16 year olds? Younger? Having…

>Wonder why the above is being downvoted

I have fans that follow me around the internet and downvote everything I say. In this account I'm smart enough to not reveal any true personal information so I can't get doxxed again.

But to answer your question: he means anyone with the ability to speak. It is pretty shocking to the current generation of techies what was considered mainstream in the 70s [0], wherein every important French left wing intellectual of the period signed in support.

>Such a long time in remand to investigate a simple `vice’ affair, where the children have not been victims of the slightest violence, but have to the contrary testified before the examining magistrates that they consented — although the law at present denies them their right to consent — such a long time in remand we do consider scandalous in itself. Today they risk to be sentenced to a long prison term either for having had sexual relations with minors, boys as well as girls, or for having encouraged and taken photographs of their sexual plays. We believe that there is an incongruity between the designation as a `crime’ which serves to legitimize such a severity, and the facts themselves; even more so between the antiquated law and the reality of every day life in a society which tends to know about the sexuality of children and adolescents

[0] https://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/Library/00aug29b1_from_1977.ht...

Re: Who controls glibc?

#514

Post by [deleted] »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #200
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…

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.

[deleted]

Re: Who controls glibc?

#515

Post by johannes1234321 »

throwajay87492 wrote: post #501
johannes1234321 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

These constant attempts to assert that "everything is political" are getting really old. All people have the capacity to be political. Nothing else is. I wish I could understand who taught you people that insistence of stupid horseshit is the key to achieving your goals.

First of all I didn't say that "everything is political" but that in each organisation there is a degree of politics. Maybe the issue is in the word "politics" - this is not about left vs right, but social collaboration. Some people like each other more than others, some are more trustworthy to others and often the way I propose a change and whom I talk to has impact of the change being accepted - those are politics. Also technical decisions have an impact on different people and in subtle ways impact users (i.e. if a kernel switches to a high-res framebuffer mode to print boot messages and developers assume they have the width for formatting messages this impacts visually impaired people, willingly or not -- just made the example up to show subtle things)

Politics aren't bad and are an effect of different people being present in the same space, while of course there is a difference between FSF/GNU/RMS with a strong focus on a political mission and some other projects primarily focussing on a technical mission.

Re: Who controls glibc?

#516

Post by flukus »

geofft wrote: post #389
flukus wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're ignoring that witch hunting that has been going on in recent years. As a hypothetical, let's say that you believe all homosexuals will go to hell. Of course in a project or a workplace their will never be a need to bring this up and being respectful of others you never bring it up in those environments. But what about other environments? Should you be able to express your belief on your personal twitte…

Again, I totally do not feel that pressure. (And I tweet perhaps too much about my faith.) I admit that certain people with public prominence might feel the pressure of public scrutiny, but I have never seen that pressure be aligned in any particular way, whether left vs. right, or religious vs. atheist, or "politically correct" vs. "politically incorrect," or whatever. Every US presidential candidate of every party…

> But that's about public prominence.

I don't think you realize how precarious your position is when we've had things like opalgate: https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941 . This person wasn't president, wan't a celebrity, wasn't high profile at all, merely a contributor to an OSS project that had some non-PC views.

> The simple fact of the matter is that I feel completely welcome as a random contributor in projects with codes of conduct and among "SJWs,"

You will be welcome right up to the point where your not, when someone like Coroline takes an interest in your profile and gets you removed from a project. It's also been known to happen in workplaces, low level people with no public prominence being fired for not having social acceptable opinions.

Re: Who controls glibc?

#517

Post by dang »

zeth___ wrote: post #512
geofft wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure how any of this supports the point you're making (I believe the point you're making is "mentioning a traumatic event is as bad as causing the traumatic event" and/or "[these people are] authoritarians who want to remove all wrong think from the world"). If the point you're making is "I don't believe the concept of LGBTQIA+ and allies should exist," then yes, there would appear to be authoritarians who wa…

[flagged]

Personal attacks will get you banned here. Please read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and don't do this again.

Re: Who controls glibc?

#518

Post by dang »

geofft wrote: post #391
zeth___ wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then you're either willfully blind, or extremely lucky. My alma mater allows talks about helping tweens transition to their preferred gender, but banned a talked by a "pickup artist" in the last 18 months. Last Thursday I looked up a dissertation from the graduate library for work and they had a sticker on every door un-ironically using "lgbtqia+ and allies". Here's another one that does the same: https://lgbtqia.ucd…

I'm not sure how any of this supports the point you're making (I believe the point you're making is "mentioning a traumatic event is as bad as causing the traumatic event" and/or "[these people are] authoritarians who want to remove all wrong think from the world"). If the point you're making is "I don't believe the concept of LGBTQIA+ and allies should exist," then yes, there would appear to be authoritarians who wa…

Can you please avoid this sort of low-quality tit-for-tat discussion? It's not what this site is for, and goes on forever if you feed it.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Who controls glibc?

#519

Post by smsm42 »

PirateBay wrote: post #487
smsm42 wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I don't remember confirming his authoritarianism, I'm not sure why you think that's what I'm doing. If you think any exercise of rightful power is authoritarian than that's a childish definition and waters down what actual authoritarianism is.

"RMS runs the ship", "RMS has shot down things he didn't like before".

> If you think any exercise of rightful power is authoritarian

No, not any - this particular one, and in general one that is done "because I want it so, and your opinion doesn't matter because I decide here".

Re: Who controls glibc?

#520

Post by rurban »

2trill2spill wrote: post #503
rurban wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I beg to disagree. The quality post-Drepper certainly did not improve. Bugs are getting worse, needed features are still not implemented, needed performance improvements are sidelined (bsd libc still 20% faster with modern CPUs), crazy but useless ASM optimizations are being added, where e.g. proper loops written in C gain much more. Just not on gcc. Same as with stdlib++ btw, where strings are now uselessly bloated…

> (bsd libc still 20% faster with modern CPUs You have a source for that? it wouldn't surprise me, GNU code tends to be more bloated than a similar BSD licensed project.

My own benchmarks. The trick is SSE support. darwin/bsd has that builtin, esp. since darwin can guarantee that their chips do support SSE. Generic linux builds do not, and -march-native or switching to sse optimized shared libs is rarely used.

But recently also bos and align_size support got better in other libc's, which do use clang and not gcc. gcc sucks big time with those optimizations. freebsd and darwin all use clang. This is in the ~60% ball figure.

Post reply on HN