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

131–139 of 139 posts

Re: Linus Torvalds Back in Charge of Linux

#131

Post by rs23296008n1 »

roenxi wrote: post #130
rs23296008n1 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd go further than just remove "fundamentally" from that statement. I'd say the entire statement is false. Getting rid of meritocracy is "Everyone gets an A+". Teams will quickly get in trouble if everyone got A+ for "works well with the team" but some should've gotten a D- or an F. Meritocracies don't have to excuse bad behaviour if they simply penalise it. Perhaps those stuck in bad situations and complaining abou…

Meritocracy means that a political system is organised so that the "meritorious" get power, where merit is based on performance. You are talking about getting rid of ranking, possibly the concept of merit. It isn't possible to have a meritocracy with no concept of merit, but that is much stronger than not being a meritocracy. For example, I could rank a team of 5 from A+ to F, then put cousin Ahmed in charge because…

Perhaps I was not clear. A merit system that tolerates cronyism and "other isms" is not actually a system based on useful merit. And I believe that most people who are hating on meritocratic systems are really hating on corruption or dysfunctional systems. What is the point of getting a "A+" based on some merit based score if Ahmed can get in by being your cousin? Corruption would tolerate this happily. So penalise corruption!

To use your example, your cousin was put in place due to nepotism. This is very much covered by my "some other ism" as corruption or at least bad behaviour. Cronyism and nepotism both bypass natural "best person for position based on merit" selection criteria.

Integrity is well within performance measures under a meritocratic system, eg police who are corrupt can't be seen as acting as the ideal for police officers or authority by any useful measure (merit). If you hired your cousin that nepotism impacts both yours and your cousins integrity and therefore merit. This bypasses the meritocracy and is actually simple corruption.

Plenty of other "isms" are also really just corruption in various forms: sexism, racism, tokenism, ageism. I'm sure there are plenty more.

Re: Linus Torvalds Back in Charge of Linux

#133

Post by Ws32ok »

rs23296008n1 wrote: post #117
newnewpdro wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

No. It's designed to be used to wedge, curtail and essentially interfere with the projects to which it is attached. It's scope will expand to fill the space available to it. Simple as that. Quotas, funding limitations and project oversight requirements on projects will arrive in increasing numbers as time goes on.

Definitely seen the divides it's created in the communities. The CoC discussion is likely a positive thing as it is bringing up issues that need light in them. I'd like to see some evidence of the funding limitations, quotas etc.

That said, a lot of the CoC discussion rapidly goes into political discussions about meritocracy / Marxism. As I'm reading "Gulag Archipelago" at the moment, I'm starting to see some parallels in the modern world we as a species should definitely have already learnt from. The number of deaths from Marxism and Nazism is horrific.

Re: Linus Torvalds Back in Charge of Linux

#134

Post by stareatgoats »

gnulinux wrote: post #116
beatgammit wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that's not what the OP said. Marx said there are stages to "society", which are (from the link): - Primitive communism - tribes sharing everything - slavery - e.g. ancient Egypt - feudalism - kinds, fiefs, serfs - capitalism - current state - socialism - dictatorship of the proletariat - communism - stateless, classless society Marx combines the last two into one "communist" stage, but distinguishes them as phase…

"Dictatorship of the proletariat" is not a phase, the same way the dictatorship of bourgeoisie was/is not a phase. (also sidenote Marx used the word "dictatorship" a vastly different way than we use it today). > because even Marx believed there needed to be a phase to transition This is [[citation needed]] (if you're thinking of low phase communism, high phase communism (C. of Gotha Program), this is vastly misunders…

Ok, those phases may not have been as pronounced with Marx and Engels as later proponents of state socialism. But seems to me that the hard dichotomy between "the founders and the usurpers" that you propose is false, and indeed the token escape route from the obvious inhumanity of the Marxist societies that have evolved from this thinking for modern Marxists, hence the constant quarrel between these of who is most orthodox. An honest scholarly assessment seems to me to be that "scientific" historical determinism is embedded in the Marxist thinking from the outset (albeit not without contradictory tendencies), including the objective historical phases based on the means of production. It is a reductionist approach which plagues much scientific thinking, which, contrary to the actual scientific method as we understand it, assumes that we know all the basic variables (the 'atoms' of history as it were), or at least that the variables behave in a mechanistic cause/effect manner, a determinism that ultimately paves the way for the moral/ethical irresponsibility we've seen. [0]

That be as it may, in view of your fairly economist view ("the fundamental thesis of Marx is that society exists completely independent of politics, power hierarchies, ideas etc.."), it would be interesting to hear how you assess this letter of Engels from 1890, especially first and last paragraphs [1]

I would also be interested to know what you mean by "DotP is one possible way socialism can be achieved"

[0] https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/scientis...

[1] https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1890/letters/90_...

Re: Linus Torvalds Back in Charge of Linux

#135

Post by BurnGpuBurn »

danillonunes wrote: post #128
BurnGpuBurn wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for pointing me to that, I wasn't aware. Very well played indeed. I think I'll proactively start including this in my own projects. However what I meant was the projects on this list: https://www.contributor-covenant.org/adopters

I would include that in my project if I had one and I am an atheist. I would convert just so I can play this card.

One of the best things is you really don't even have to convert to anything.

Re: Linus Torvalds Back in Charge of Linux

#136

Post by gnulinux »

stareatgoats wrote: post #134
gnulinux wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Dictatorship of the proletariat" is not a phase, the same way the dictatorship of bourgeoisie was/is not a phase. (also sidenote Marx used the word "dictatorship" a vastly different way than we use it today). > because even Marx believed there needed to be a phase to transition This is [[citation needed]] (if you're thinking of low phase communism, high phase communism (C. of Gotha Program), this is vastly misunders…

Ok, those phases may not have been as pronounced with Marx and Engels as later proponents of state socialism. But seems to me that the hard dichotomy between "the founders and the usurpers" that you propose is false, and indeed the token escape route from the obvious inhumanity of the Marxist societies that have evolved from this thinking for modern Marxists, hence the constant quarrel between these of who is most or…

> [first paragraph]

While I don't wanna get more into this debate, I should one more time state that reducing Marxism to "inhuman Marxist societies" is ad hominem and your argument doesn't have any value to me. Also you used/coined a word "state socialism" which to me is an oxymoron as I cannot conceptualize socialism that is not stateless.

Marxism may be reductionist or wrong (and it is) but it is almost by design wrong. Darwin was also vastly wrong and ignorant (he didn't even know genes). There is a very rich academic literature on Marxism, that is not written by laymen (like Stalin who I doubt ever read any Marx). Similarly, modern biology is almost all about evolution regardless whether Darwin's original ideas were accurate or not, they found their own way. Marx is outdated in a very similar fashion Freud or Darwin are outdated. Just 'cause some inhuman eugenics people thought we can apply "Darwinism" to kill people doesn't make Darwinism inhuman (unless you think it does, but I don't think so).

> [Engels talking about dilettantes and how not everything can be reduced to economy etc]

This sort of reduction wasn't what I was going for. To me Marxism is a tool, just like any other tool. It gives me a clear framework to conceptualize and analyze things, using a very similar analysis Marx used in the German Ideology, Capital etc (which people sometimes say reversed Hegelianism, but this is not very accurate). It's about when you observe the world what you see in abstract. Of course, in real life people still do stuff independent of their financial situation etc. This is not relevant imho.

Re: Linus Torvalds Back in Charge of Linux

#137

Post by stareatgoats »

gnulinux wrote: post #136
stareatgoats wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, those phases may not have been as pronounced with Marx and Engels as later proponents of state socialism. But seems to me that the hard dichotomy between "the founders and the usurpers" that you propose is false, and indeed the token escape route from the obvious inhumanity of the Marxist societies that have evolved from this thinking for modern Marxists, hence the constant quarrel between these of who is most or…

> [first paragraph] While I don't wanna get more into this debate, I should one more time state that reducing Marxism to "inhuman Marxist societies" is ad hominem and your argument doesn't have any value to me. Also you used/coined a word "state socialism" which to me is an oxymoron as I cannot conceptualize socialism that is not stateless. Marxism may be reductionist or wrong (and it is) but it is almost by design w…

OK thanks, we can leave it at that. I personally dropped Marxism (and joined the idealists) some 20 years ago when I became convinced that analysis doesn't portray reality as much as it creates it, and Marxism paints a more hopeless and sinister world than I actually adhere to. That said, agree that some aspects like class analysis are useful as analytical tools, that I still use to some degree.

Re: Linus Torvalds Back in Charge of Linux

#138

Post by rs23296008n1 »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #61
DoreenMichele wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's actually pretty typical of crusaders, IME. Most of them don't actually want to end the Lord of the Flies pecking order. They just want to shift around who is on top crapping on people and who is getting crapped on. Generally speaking, they want to do the crapping (along with some highly arbitrary set of "their people") and whomever currently has privilege they would like to see getting crapped on. Their "visio…

This is where it's at. Also this ... palaver about equality is, well, nonsense simply because, well, people, on the whole, can't be nice . Not in any longterm, meaningful way. Make no mistake, if the current system where replaced tomorrow by one dreamed up by some other set of people, it would come with it's own complete set of bugs.

People can easily be nice. But they are afraid. Being nice is seen as being weak and vulnerable in this culture and several others. The societies as a whole are sick and twisted away from basic humility and useful cooperation.
Post reply on HN