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

Linus Torvalds Back in Charge of Linux

zdnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 139 posts

Re: Linus Torvalds Back in Charge of Linux

#101

Post by UncleMeat »

chroma wrote: post #49
ghusbands wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of the point is that the unprivileged don't get the same opportunities in many ways, so they don't do so well in tests but they still do well at the job; therefore, you need to give them extra leeway during recruiting and such. Also, the experience of the less privileged is that some people use claimed-impartial tests and barriers to exclude them in particular, and so when a test comes along it is demotivating,…

> Look at the examples of CVs/books sent around with just the name/gender changed and the huge difference in response rate to see the bias. That's not true. The original studies used low class names for blacks and hispanics, but not for whites. (For example, they didn't use names like Cletus or Billy Ray.) Once this was corrected for, they found almost no bias in resume screening.[1] 1. https://economics.missouri.edu…

The emily and jamal paper controlled for mother's education level distributions.

Re: Linus Torvalds Back in Charge of Linux

#102

Post by gnulinux »

weliketocode wrote: post #91
cesarb wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me on the other hand, it was obvious that he would be back as soon as 4.19 was released and the 4.20 merge window opened (the kernel release cycle has two phases, the merge window where new features and the bulk of the changes come in, and a phase where only bug fixes are supposed to come in). He took advantage of the time when the merge window was closed, since it's a less hectic period, and handed over maintenan…

That's impressive foresight. Why did Linus make such fanfare about his departure if it was always intended to be so short?

Because this was the first time in the history of linux this happened (a non-LTS release that wasn't by Linus himself) and Linus also wanted to take this as an opportunity to apologize for his behavior. Linux is a huge and very important project, so I'm not surprised this deal was a big deal and had a lot of coverage in HN or reddit.

Re: Linus Torvalds Back in Charge of Linux

#103

Post by AnnoyingSwede »

newnewpdro wrote: post #26
AnnoyingSwede wrote: post #20

Funny that their code of conduct contains all the standard equal rights no matter what XYZ, while this was never Linus problem. He never lashed out on people because of gender, race or sexual preference. It should simply have said "Don't be an elitistic assh*le aginst people just doing their best."

Obviously the COC isn't written just to control Linus' behavior.

The timing is impeccable, would you not agree?

Re: Linus Torvalds Back in Charge of Linux

#104

Post by AnnoyingSwede »

BurnGpuBurn wrote: post #56
chroma wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here’s one: https://twitter.com/CoralineAda/status/874642259672801280 > “Meritocracy” is just thinly veiled misogyny and white supremacy propping up fragile cis het white men’s egos. Or https://twitter.com/CoralineAda/status/1029952846492565504 > “Reverse racism” is such a weird phrase for “justice”. Or https://twitter.com/CoralineAda/status/823064825366360065 > Why didn’t anyone punch the reporter giving the nazi ai…

It's amazing to see how many nice open source projects have been pressured into adopting this.

Like SQLite? Well played if you ask me.. https://www.sqlite.org/codeofconduct.html

Re: Linus Torvalds Back in Charge of Linux

#105

Post by lucozade »

weliketocode wrote: post #91
cesarb wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me on the other hand, it was obvious that he would be back as soon as 4.19 was released and the 4.20 merge window opened (the kernel release cycle has two phases, the merge window where new features and the bulk of the changes come in, and a phase where only bug fixes are supposed to come in). He took advantage of the time when the merge window was closed, since it's a less hectic period, and handed over maintenan…

That's impressive foresight. Why did Linus make such fanfare about his departure if it was always intended to be so short?

> Why did Linus make such fanfare about his departure

I'm not sure he did. AFAICT he wrote an email on the Linux mailing explaining that he was taking some time off and why. He also did an interview or two, presumably because he was asked.

He probably realised that a portion of the internet would go bananas but that's not entirely his doing.

Re: Linus Torvalds Back in Charge of Linux

#106

Post by chroma »

aninhumer wrote: post #97
chroma wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You misread the paper. The surnames Anderson and Thompson have white connotations, while Jefferson and Washington have black connotations. The researchers backed up their choices with data. From page 3: > For example, based on data from the United States Census, 90 and 75 percent of individuals with Washington and Jefferson surnames are African American, respectively. Similarly, 90 percent of individuals with a surna…

Ah yes, you're correct, I got confused by the first-name/surname thing. I would still question the validity of this approach, and more generally, I don't think you can meaningfully isolate class and race, since they're so inter-related in the US. They acknowledge that the names may not be strong signals, but the very reason that's the case is that people are less likely to associate black people with high socioeconom…

Even if you object to their choices of black surnames, they also ran experiments with male and female names, and with hispanic names. In those cases, resume screeners were all but certain as to the race and sex of the applicant. Still, there was almost no discrimination detected.

Honestly, I feel like I'm playing whack-a-mole here. You started by claiming that there was a massive gender & race bias:

> CVs/books sent around with just the name/gender changed and the huge difference in response rate to see the bias.

When I corrected that and linked to a study, you replied with an argument based on a misreading. When I corrected your misreading, you fell back to, "I don't think you can meaningfully isolate class and race, since they're so inter-related in the US." If that's the case, then it also refutes the conclusions of the original (flawed) studies claiming racism. After all, if your argument is true, those can be just as easily explained as classism.

I'm not sure there is anything that could convince you that you are mistaken.

Re: Linus Torvalds Back in Charge of Linux

#107

Post by gnulinux »

stareatgoats wrote: post #53
alerighi wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She is not communist, communism is all about meritocracy, I don't read anywhere in the books of Marx all this gender and equality bullshit. Communism says that no matter who you are you are evaluated for the work you do, having policies that explicitally favorites womans is not communism, is discrimination against mens

I'm assuming by 'communism' you mean Marxist philosophy. The most accurate description would however probably be that morals like this don't exist in a metaphysical sense, but are tied to each stage in social development (hunter/gatherers, slavery, feudalism, capitalism, socialism and communism) [0]. Under socialism (the next stage from ours) workers would be rewarded according to contribution (meritocracy) whereas t…

There is no "stages" in Marxism. That's a Stalinist bullshit that doesn't make any sense in the theoretical framework of Marx&Engels. The natural force that makes capitalism possible is commodity production because: as long as there are commodities this implies a division of labor where a labor produces something for the sole reason trade and thus implies social class; and as long as there is commodity production you'll have the accumulation of value. Communism is in direct opposition to social class and value. The Marxist idea is instead that communism is the society where the natural force that generates capitalism is somehow killed, this implies the society will not have social class, will not have value (and as an implication no trade, since in Marxism value is determined in the moment of trade, and that moment alone). Thus thinking about "stages" where some "State" is governing "towards" a classless, valueless, stateless society makes as much as the rest of Stalinism. Traditional Marxism predicts a communist revolution much like French Revolution.

Re: Linus Torvalds Back in Charge of Linux

#108

Post by newnewpdro »

AnnoyingSwede wrote: post #103
newnewpdro wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously the COC isn't written just to control Linus' behavior.

The timing is impeccable, would you not agree?

The timing is easily explained from the perspective of the New Yorker's article publication and a want to do something visible to the contrary as evidence of a willingness to improve as a community.

Hence why the CoC is a whole lot broader in scope than anything Linus has ever done. It's more of a "while we're here on this subject and have everyone's attention, let's clean house a bit."

Re: Linus Torvalds Back in Charge of Linux

#109

Post by erikb »

dsr_ wrote: post #71
erikb wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was a political move from day one. As you might notice Kernel is not the only environment that adds and modifies their CoC currently. There is a group with political goals driving that effort. He wanted to see where the wind is blowing before making a move himself, as well as be flexible enough to also move into the corresponding direction. That said, I also wonder if he moves too quickly, or if he found an agreem…

Can you identify this "group with political goals driving that effort" or is it speculation bordering on conspiracy theory?

Can you check the other comments in the thread and any other post about CoCs in FOSS communities over the recent 4-16 weeks?

Check out this discussion for instance: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18281676

Also note that my previous comment is at -4 already of the time of this writing, which must be done by someone who doesn't like that opinion. You wouldn't go ask 5-7 of your friends to give downvotes to that comment just because you disagree with it, right?

Re: Linus Torvalds Back in Charge of Linux

#110

Post by belorn »

aninhumer wrote: post #66
jf- wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A very interesting observation is that in the extreme "meritocracy" 100% implies that people with merit should be excused for their bad behavior in public spaces based on the value of their technical contributions. That’s a non sequitur. There’s no reason that a meritocracy must allow bad behaviour from high performing contributors. Linus’s behaviour has been accepted, even lauded by certain members of the communit…

>The simple fact is that people who have power tend to abuse that power, but that has nothing to do with meritocracy as a concept. Except that by definition, meritocracy creates a power dynamic which can be abused in this way. Those with "merit" are trusted and respected more than those without. This means that complaints about their behaviour are more often ignored or dismissed. And even when bad behaviour is too bl…

Which system do not create a power dynamic that can be abused? It seems like an shared problem, where the only reachable goal is to create safeguards so that when power dynamic create abuse there is some form of process to address it.

A democratic system based on popularity share all those problems attributed to meritocracy. Those deemed popular are trusted and respected more than those without. complaints about their behaviour are more often ignored or dismissed. When bad behaviour is too blatant to ignore, the punishment is often lesser, for fear of loosing influence and power.

What I would like to know is if meritocracy has a higher risk of causing abuse compared to other systems.

Post reply on HN