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

101–110 of 150 posts

Re: Linux 4.19

#101

Post by warmwaffles »

specialist wrote: post #89
m1el wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I'm a huge fan of CoC's. It allows us to codify the spirit of the law, to be used as a fall-back plan when the letter of the law is being gamed. CoC's allow judgement, in contrast to zero tolerance policies which prohibit judgement. One of orgs I volunteer for had our own #metoo drama. Actual rape, assaults, harassment, etc. Some stomach turning stuff. It made the news. There have been some out of court settlements.…

> In other words, I choose 98% awesome over 100% terrible, and happily work to further reduce that 2% gap.

Made up percentages but I understand what you are trying to convey.

Re: Linux 4.19

#102

Post by forgottenpass »

geofft wrote: post #67
icebraining wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone has stated their worries on the LKML: https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/9/19/234

> Some elements of the Code are unobjectionable; sexual advances, for instance, have no place on the lkml (though they may at, say, a conference, and not everyone can reliably predict whether they are unwelcome) ' I feel like one of the neat things about a code of conduct is it provides cleanly defined answers for people who are genuinely unsure whether sexual advances are welcome at professional conferences.

>it provides cleanly defined answers for people who are genuinely unsure whether sexual advances are welcome at professional conferences.

So chatting at the convention center bar with other attendees falls outside CoC scope?

Or are you saying that the clearly defined "no" exists exclusively for the kind of people that would be unsure, while the answer remains "yes" for people who are self-assured?

Re: Linux 4.19

#103

Post by warmwaffles »

jedberg wrote: post #73
tylerjwilk00 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I got down voted last time I mentioned this like it is some sort of conspiracy and not historical fact, but Microsoft literally used the phrase "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" [1] as a strategy to defeat competition. So anytime you hear of them embracing something you would do well to be skeptical of their motives. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguis...

Sure, but that was two CEOs ago, and they were the dominant market player in all categories at the time. They're a different company now.

> They're a different company now.

I would argue that they are still driven by sales and bottom lines.

Re: Linux 4.19

#104

Post by 0xcde4c3db »

dvfjsdhgfv wrote: post #69
pas wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meritocracy is meaningless without an utility function. And communication is (or should be) an important component for a lead dev. Linus is a great guy, but some remarks of his were completely unnecessary and overly abrasive. (Without exact technical details about why the code is shit.)

> Meritocracy is meaningless without an utility function. I'm not sure what you mean in the context of Free Software/Open Source. FOSS is something that is useful to everybody, and meritocracy ensures that the folks who are the most knowledgeable decide how it's developed.

The issue is that calling a system meritocratic doesn't give a functional definition of merit, and people tend to evaluate merit in very biased ways; see e.g. the halo/horn effect [1]. Possibly the simplest and most pervasive bias, though, is that work by familiar people is viewed as more valuable than work by unfamiliar people (cf. nepotism, cronyism, NIH).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect

Re: Linux 4.19

#105

Post by floatingatoll »

jedberg wrote: post #73
tylerjwilk00 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I got down voted last time I mentioned this like it is some sort of conspiracy and not historical fact, but Microsoft literally used the phrase "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" [1] as a strategy to defeat competition. So anytime you hear of them embracing something you would do well to be skeptical of their motives. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguis...

Sure, but that was two CEOs ago, and they were the dominant market player in all categories at the time. They're a different company now.

That’s no reason to stop being skeptical, necessarily, but it’s certainly a good sign!

Re: Linux 4.19

#106

Post by ageofwant »

werid wrote: post #99
codeaken wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

I said nothing of how big the split was. It seems the loud voices about how bad the CoC is aren't actually kernel devs... But there is atleast one known kernel dev who spoke up about Linus' behaviour, and eventually just quit developing for the kernel. edit: not to mention those who don't want to touch the kernel because of his behaviour. one guy said the only contributions he makes to the kernel are for his employer…

So out of ~6k developers you only know of two malcontents? I don't think that is what 'split' means.

Re: Linux 4.19

#107

Post by ChrisSD »

wmil wrote: post #95
ChrisSD wrote: post #45

I think all this handwringing over the CoC would have more weight for me if: a) It came from major Linux contributors. b) It didn't assume a conspiracy to not only oust Linus but also get him to dance to their tune.

It's not really a conspiracy theory. A "New Yorker" writer has publicly claimed credit for Torvalds' change of heart. There was a massive hit piece ready to go if he didn't accept the CoC and step down. https://www.itwire.com/open-source/84590-new-yorker-claims-c...

But the new yorker ran[0] the "hit piece" so why would that buy his cooperation? And it's not like articles calling out Linus are anything new.

[0]: https://www.newyorker.com/science/elements/after-years-of-ab...

Re: Linux 4.19

#108

Post by forgottenpass »

ChrisSD wrote: post #45

I think all this handwringing over the CoC would have more weight for me if: a) It came from major Linux contributors. b) It didn't assume a conspiracy to not only oust Linus but also get him to dance to their tune.

You're using a line of argument that I see quite often in day to day stuff (outside the kernel) so I have to push back on this.

>would have more weight for me if [...] It came from major Linux contributors.

The group of people you would give the most weight to the opinion of are also the group under the most pressured not to voice dissent publicly.

It isn't wrong to look to them or give large weight to their positions. The error is in assuming that we can know their position beyond their choice not to rock the boat. It might be very easy (they're in full agreement) or very tricky (blood boiling, but "not their hill to die on").

All we know is that they do not dissent to the level that they are willing to risk their involvement in the project at hand, or have a damaged reputation when they try to participate in another.

Re: Linux 4.19

#109

Post by SmellyGeekBoy »

elcomet wrote: post #97
0xfeeddeadbeef wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would like to extend this point: "I'd rather have Linus Torvalds telling me I'm an idiot and my code is shit, than ... releasing kernel with my shitty code and EVERYONE thinking that I'm an idiot".

But this is a false dichotomy. They could just refuse your code without calling you an idiot.

Of course there exist examples of Linus calling or even implying that individual people / organisations are "idiots" and they are wrong (and he has acknowledged this). But in the vast majority of cases the criticism is aimed at the code itself and I genuinely don't see the issue with this.

Re: Linux 4.19

#110

Post by SmellyGeekBoy »

craigsmansion wrote: post #59
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.

Seems to have worked just fine so far.
Post reply on HN