Linux 4.19 • Hacker News Board

Re: Linux 4.19

#141

Post by stevewillows » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 11:24 PM UTC

Fnoord wrote: post #140

stevewillows wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure about haptic feedback yet. For Windows, try https://github.com/imbushuo/mac-precision-touchpad/releases I went through a lot of sketchy drivers like that one you mentioned, but this one worked the best without any helper apps to mess around with. Its a shame its taken so long for other OSs to support such a great device.

Thanks for the link. I did search quite a bit, but I did not find that one. I noticed a few things from the link: the Apple Magic Trackpad 2 support is "not stable", and it does not appear to be usable via Bluetooth.

With Linux, the latest kernel will allow for bluetooth connectivity. If you search for `Linux Magic Trackpad 2` you'll see some of the discussions.

It takes a bit of messing around, but once you get it, it'll stay working nicely.

One issue I had with Linux, which is probably an easy fix, is that Powertop wanted to sleep the trackpad after 10s of non-use.

With Windows, I tried to get the bluetooth working on a non-bootcamp install and couldn't get it going. I don't doubt that they'll sort it out. A few versions of W10 ago some were using the bootcamp drivers with moderate success.

Re: Linux 4.19

#142

Post by vertex-four » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 11:32 PM UTC

roenxi wrote: post #139

vertex-four wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can be autistic, not good in social situations, and still not abuse, harass, or discriminate against people. Associating abuse and harassment with being a fundamental part of autism is not ok. Autistic people can fully understand "do not perform this behaviour again" - they can also understand consequences of their behaviour, including both positive ("people like to talk to me more and are more accepting of my id…

I suppose you are arguing that meritocratic communities aren't the best setup for a community - which is a pretty reasonable one. I mean, the big successful countries aren't meritocracies, they are democracies. So fair enough. > Finally - if you allow abusive people to exist within a community, you by definition exclude everybody who they would abuse. You are going directly to how a meritocratic society might fail. M…

I’m suggesting that your meritocracy doesn’t exist - if your organisation is structured to exclude people who may (and likely do) have contributions of merit, it is not a meritocracy. Then, the question is simple - who do you exclude? People who abuse others, or the people they abuse?

Note that this is a community issue, not a code issue. If somebody wants to sit on their own, publish patches to their own website, and somebody else wants to import those patches into a community project, fine - there’s no non-technical interaction needed there, and little actual reason to exclude their code. It’s excluding them from the community that we’re talking about here.

Re: Linux 4.19

#143

Post by wmil » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 11:36 PM UTC

ChrisSD wrote: post #107

wmil wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

If he hadn't stepped aside it would have been paired with activists calling for him to be forced out and putting pressure on corporate partners to denounce him and take over control of kernel development.

Re: Linux 4.19

#144

Post by geofft » Tue, Oct 23, 2018, 12:51 AM UTC

TheJEB-AK wrote: post #129

jf- wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your example isn’t that ambiguous, that’s a public communication directly about the project. That should be covered by the CoC. However unrelated statements, even very politically incorrect ones, should be outside it’s remit. If for example someone was a virulent racist on twitter. That’s arguably a bad thing, but those statements are unrelated to the project and should have no bearing on contributions to it. (Now th…

No downvotes from this guy here. I work with some terrible engineers who I wouldn't trust to design a tire pressure gauge but they're pleasant to be around. On the other hand, I've worked with world class engineers who are abrasive as hell but still write/design good gear. Code shouldn't have a thing to do with their political leanings. To quote an old OpenBSD saying: "shut up and hack".

So what do you do in the unlikely event that someone who's a target of the racism is interested in contributing to the project?

Does "shut up and hack" apply to telling them to keep their racism to themselves?

(I realize you didn't say anything about racism, but you replied supportively to a comment about it, so I'm not sure where you stand.)

Re: Linux 4.19

#145

Post by geofft » Tue, Oct 23, 2018, 12:53 AM UTC

forgottenpass wrote: post #102

geofft wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

The clearly defined "no" should exist for both. If a code of conduct does not apply to everyone, it's simply another tool for those confident in their status and power to do what they want and the rest to watch helplessly—which is the entire problem being solved by codes of conduct in the first place.

(A fear that a code of conduct will not be applied equitably without regard of persons is an entirely valid reason to object to one.)

Re: Linux 4.19

#146

Post by roenxi » Tue, Oct 23, 2018, 1:22 AM UTC

vertex-four wrote: post #142

roenxi wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suppose you are arguing that meritocratic communities aren't the best setup for a community - which is a pretty reasonable one. I mean, the big successful countries aren't meritocracies, they are democracies. So fair enough. > Finally - if you allow abusive people to exist within a community, you by definition exclude everybody who they would abuse. You are going directly to how a meritocratic society might fail. M…

I’m suggesting that your meritocracy doesn’t exist - if your organisation is structured to exclude people who may (and likely do) have contributions of merit, it is not a meritocracy. Then, the question is simple - who do you exclude? People who abuse others, or the people they abuse? Note that this is a community issue, not a code issue. If somebody wants to sit on their own, publish patches to their own website, an…

> I’m suggesting that your meritocracy doesn’t exist

Nothing ideologically pure exists - technically there are no democracies in the world either, because, eg, places like the US dilute the will of the masses with the court system (which is not democratic). It is still a pretty democratic country.

> if your organisation is structured to exclude people who may (and likely do) have contributions of merit, it is not a meritocracy

Sure it is. That is like saying you can't have a democracy in Australia if people in Tanzania who aren't Australian citizens, because a a palce ruled-by-people is excluding people. It is reasonable to argue that excluding people who have great potential is a bad idea, which it is, but you can still have a meritocracy.

> Then the question is simple - who do you exclude? People who abuse others, or the people they abuse?

No, that isn't the question at all. The question is simple and it is "how do we support the people making the greatest technical contributions?". In an extreme case, that might mean putting up with some off-color characters who happen to be inspired technical experts.

It isn't perfect. What is? But that is what meritocracies do.

Re: Linux 4.19

#147

Post by jf- » Tue, Oct 23, 2018, 8:16 AM UTC

geofft wrote: post #144

TheJEB-AK wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No downvotes from this guy here. I work with some terrible engineers who I wouldn't trust to design a tire pressure gauge but they're pleasant to be around. On the other hand, I've worked with world class engineers who are abrasive as hell but still write/design good gear. Code shouldn't have a thing to do with their political leanings. To quote an old OpenBSD saying: "shut up and hack".

So what do you do in the unlikely event that someone who's a target of the racism is interested in contributing to the project? Does "shut up and hack" apply to telling them to keep their racism to themselves? (I realize you didn't say anything about racism, but you replied supportively to a comment about it, so I'm not sure where you stand.)

Then you’re into territory where the CoC controls everything that a contributor says on every platform, as another contributor can always claim some indirect harm.

Re: Linux 4.19

#148

Post by KozmoNau7 » Tue, Oct 23, 2018, 11:16 AM UTC

x220 wrote: post #123

KozmoNau7 wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is exactly why there's a board, requiring 2/3rds majority in a vote, after reviewing the evidence in question. A person cannot simply accuse people they don't like and get them excluded for breaching the CoC. It doesn't work that way. And harassment/belittelment is always a question of feelings. You can't set up a clear concise objective standard. It's a case by case thing.

> a board, requiring 2/3rds majority in a vote So instead of merely depending on the feelings of the accuser, it depends on the feelings of two thirds of the board? That's not much better. You can make objective rules that are not subject to feelings, you just have to be willing to not please everyone. When you don't have objective rules, people are less likely to participate in the game because people can't be sure…

The board has a set of rules, that is the CoC. However as in any case where people are involved, they will have to deliberate and discuss to reach a conclusion.

Perfectly normal.

If you have a set of strict objective rules, some people will find a way to game them, and still harass people.

Re: Linux 4.19

#149

Post by geofft » Tue, Oct 23, 2018, 1:36 PM UTC

jf- wrote: post #147

geofft wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what do you do in the unlikely event that someone who's a target of the racism is interested in contributing to the project? Does "shut up and hack" apply to telling them to keep their racism to themselves? (I realize you didn't say anything about racism, but you replied supportively to a comment about it, so I'm not sure where you stand.)

Then you’re into territory where the CoC controls everything that a contributor says on every platform, as another contributor can always claim some indirect harm.

Always? All sorts of speech cause indirect harm to someone, analogous to "virulent racism"?

If that's really true, doesn't "shut up and hack" apply all the more? If you really cared about the code, you could keep your political opinions to yourself.

(Also, this is precisely why many codes of conduct define the exact harms they care about - so racism is an excluded harm, but, say, making Hans Reiser feel bad about being a murderer isn't. If you're a fan of racism, you might use this as an indicator to avoid the project and find another one, or fork it under the license.)

Re: Linux 4.19

#150

Post by jf- » Thu, Oct 25, 2018, 9:22 PM UTC

geofft wrote: post #149

jf- wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then you’re into territory where the CoC controls everything that a contributor says on every platform, as another contributor can always claim some indirect harm.

Always? All sorts of speech cause indirect harm to someone, analogous to "virulent racism"? If that's really true, doesn't "shut up and hack" apply all the more? If you really cared about the code, you could keep your political opinions to yourself. (Also, this is precisely why many codes of conduct define the exact harms they care about - so racism is an excluded harm, but, say, making Hans Reiser feel bad about bei…

Which is all just censorship by the back door. With the possible implied accusation of racism aimed at me. I’ll spare both of us the usual freedom of speech rationales, I assume you’ve heard them before. It seems from your posts that you personally really do wish to use CoCs as a tool of wide-ranging ideological enforcement, exactly as their detractors fear. Or have I misinterpreted you?

However on forking I do tend to agree. There appears to be an audience for projects with less controlling, or less ideologically intended rules. These projects should be formed and developers should make their own choice between them.