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

Linux 4.19

lkml.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 150 posts

Re: Linux 4.19

#51

Post by valvar »

vertex-four wrote: post #47
valvar wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And instead one should... Attack the ``status quo''? This line of reasoning is inherently partisan and extremely political as well as divisive. Believing that meritocracy is bad is a fringe belief, and in this case there really is nothing that suggests that adhering to the ``status quo'' is the non-insane alternative. Edit: I'd also like to highlight that this is a classic version of the ``you're either with us, or a…

It’s really not a fringe belief outside of your circles - “meritocracy” is one of those things that sounds like a good idea, like “communism”, but organisations and structures defining themselves by those words very rarely practice what they preach. A meritocracy would never allow harassment of people on the basis of things that have nothing to do with their code - it would take a hard stance against sexism and haras…

>but organisations and structures defining themselves by those words very rarely practice what they preach

Is there some sort of evidence for this?

>A meritocracy would never allow harassment of people on the basis of things that have nothing to do with their code - it would take a hard stance against sexism and harassment, it would attempt to communicate in a way that doesn’t drive people away from the project in a biased manner, since those and many other behaviours drive away people who may have merit

I can buy that. But that means that you do believe in merit as a central principle. The new CoC is founded on an ideology that explicitly rejects it.

>If anything, a well-designed code of conduct can create something closer to a real meritocracy, as you don’t drive away contributors on anything but the merit of their contributions.

If that were the purpose of the new Contributor Covenant, I don't think anyone would be complaining.

Re: Linux 4.19

#52

Post by codeaken »

werid wrote: post #38
codeaken wrote: post #27

I feel really worried about the Kernel project now that they have let Identity Politics breach their walls. These kind of things have a tendency to split a community rather than unite it. The kernel project is surely one of the most successful software projects ever. Having survived for 20 years, why change a winning formula? I have always considered Linus un-political and more interested in getting sh*t done and get…

The community was already split. Those who tolerated his behaviour and those who didn't.

I don't think it was, at least not that black and white. If the community really was that split the project would not have survived for 20 years. Surely we would have seen a fork where the involved factions split off.

I think this is a very vocal minority in play here. From my understanding these changes did not come from any of the core contributors but rather from activists. The used divide and rule; if you don't sign off on our political documents you are with "them" and we will let everyone know what a horrible human being you are.

Re: Linux 4.19

#53

Post by thomasfedb »

valvar wrote: post #46
thomasfedb wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm actually not sure about what you are trying to communicate. I'm communicating the names of the fallacies I believe that you have committed. Tongue firmly half in cheek.

So basically, you are trolling. Thank you for being candid.

[flagged]

Re: Linux 4.19

#54

Post by icebraining »

m1el wrote: post #24
metildaa wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The CoC being a political document is expected, it is laying the boundaries that define acceptable behavior, an inherently political task. On that ssamw tangent, the GPL series of license is inherently political. I personally like the political ideology espoused, but some do not despite how other licenses leave these developers with many users and proprietary forks, buf no added code, docs or community.

> The CoC being a political document is expected I agree that both CoC and GPL are political. Developers need to understand something: CoC a political document written by someone opposing one of important principles of free software, meritocracy. https://postmeritocracy.org/ Now here's a big difference: linux was developed under GPL from the very beginning. If you didn't like the politics behind GPL, you didn't contr…

You should accept the politics if you agree with them. Linux should change its politics if its major contributors agree they should be changed, and at least seven of them - including Linus himself - do.

I'm not sure why this is controversial - the people who can implement the CoC are the same people who generally decide where the project goes, same as always (just ask the people behind GRSecurity).

I'm not sure why some people have this illusion that they somehow have a (moral?) veto power to stop any changes they dislike.

Re: Linux 4.19

#55

Post by binaryapparatus »

It is very disturbing for me to see Greg KH being at the top and deciding what goes into Linux. There is history of agenda that doesn't align best with kernel user interests. Can't forget d-bus events very related to this person. I did switch to FreeBSD couple of years ago but I love linux and it is not easiest to observe all the latest events.

Re: Linux 4.19

#57

Post by valvar »

valvar wrote: post #46
thomasfedb wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm actually not sure about what you are trying to communicate. I'm communicating the names of the fallacies I believe that you have committed. Tongue firmly half in cheek.

So basically, you are trolling. Thank you for being candid.

[flagged]

Re: Linux 4.19

#58

Post by icebraining »

valvar wrote: post #51
vertex-four wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s really not a fringe belief outside of your circles - “meritocracy” is one of those things that sounds like a good idea, like “communism”, but organisations and structures defining themselves by those words very rarely practice what they preach. A meritocracy would never allow harassment of people on the basis of things that have nothing to do with their code - it would take a hard stance against sexism and haras…

>but organisations and structures defining themselves by those words very rarely practice what they preach Is there some sort of evidence for this? >A meritocracy would never allow harassment of people on the basis of things that have nothing to do with their code - it would take a hard stance against sexism and harassment, it would attempt to communicate in a way that doesn’t drive people away from the project in a…

> Is there some sort of evidence for this?

What type of evidence would change your mind?

> The new CoC is founded on an ideology that explicitly rejects it.

The GPL is also founded on an ideology that rejects proprietary software, yet Linux is used by plenty of companies who develop such software. "Foundations" are just an origin story. What part of the actual text of the CoC prevents a meritocracy?

> If that were the purpose of the new Contributor Covenant, I don't think anyone would be complaining.

Reusing the previous example, the purpose of the GPL was to drive out proprietary software; yet the people using it in Linux do not yield it that way. It doesn't matter what purpose the original writer had in mind, only the purpose of those who have the power to interpret and implement it. Do you believe the TAB has any other purpose in mind?

Re: Linux 4.19

#59

Post by craigsmansion »

jf- wrote: post #29

I’m seeing a lot of people stating that they’re worried about this code of conduct. Since I’ve not read it or any commentary about it, can someone tell me why it’s so worrying? Is there a sincere fear that Linux will be damaged as a result? If so, how?

The CoC can be used as a stick by Linux Foundation platinum members to get a grip on more outspoken maintainers. That way they can put more generic programmers who are used to corporate "professional" culture on the kernel.

Linux means big money now, you can't leave that in the hands of the rabble.

Re: Linux 4.19

#60

Post by seanhunter »

Having someone else manage merges into the stable kernel branch isn't new. In the old kernel dev model (circa 2.x kernels) after the first few patches in a new stable kernel, Linus always used to delegate stable maintenance to someone else (Alan Cox) so he had more time to work on the experimental branch. So Alan would maintain 2.0 and Linus 2.1 for example.
Post reply on HN