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

Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

lunduke.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 447 posts

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#301

Post by JohnFen »

geofft wrote: post #66
derefr wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Real jerks in f/oss are also a real problem. f/oss groups should ABSOLUTELY eject bullies: not for wrongthink, but for bullying. We must be kind. So, is it illegitimate, then, to have a FOSS project with an intentional/cultivated "culture of abuse", where the idea is that nobody is kind to anybody and that's how everybody likes it? Sort of a... "BSDM but we build something along the way" thing? (For example, pictur…

It's absolutely legitimate to have a F/OSS-licensed project with such a culture. But it shouldn't count as part of the F/OSS movement(s), any more than an MIT-licensed website about how you need to pay SCO for Linux licenses would be part of the movement.

> But it shouldn't count as part of the F/OSS movement(s)

Why not? Who gets to determine what counts as being part of the movement? I thought that, broadly speaking, the movement was about the method of producing and licensing software. If a certain group produces F/OSS software, but is internally abhorrent, they're still part of the F/OSS movement.

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#302

Post by JohnFen »

geofft wrote: post #288
core-questions wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But it shouldn't count as part of the F/OSS movement Why not? If the end result is a high quality piece of open source software, why do I need to care about the politics or behavior of the developers? The only reason I can think of would be from a risk-assessment standpoint, i.e. is another censorious asshole going to waltz on in and damage the team that produces this product so that it dies and becomes orphaned. W…

You don't have to care, and I am not saying you should. I'm saying it doesn't count as part of the F/OSS movement . Whether you want to contribute, not contribute, etc. is your own choice and doesn't need to be correlated in any way.

How do you define the F/OSS movement?

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#303

Post by adrianmonk »

nrclark wrote: post #59

I've read a bunch of ESR's writing, and I disagree with him on an awful lot of political and social issues. Chances are we wouldn't get along very well. Tone-policing, cancel culture, and identity politics are a real problem though, and it seems like they're getting out of hand. This is happening everywhere though - it's not unique to the open source world at all. I don't know what the right solution is. ESR and RMS…

> I don't know what the right solution is.

This is a bit of a wild theory, which I definitely can't prove, but I am tempted to blame part of it on "zero tolerance" schools.

Schools are meant to teach the material, but they're also meant to give students practice at working within a social framework. Being on time, speaking in turn, keeping track of assignments, relating to peers, etc.

People have a lot of opinions on that, but the point is, it's reality. Kids are definitely picking up from schools an idea of what is normal when it comes to how social groups work.

Before zero tolerance, when someone did something wrong, the normal way to handle it was to try to understand both sides, then exercise the discretion given to people in a position of authority, then make a judgment call that seemed fair, reasonable, and proportionate. But now the normal way to handle situations is to more or less unconditionally penalize the offender without any leeway being given.

So now we have a whole generation or so of people who grew up having that style of authority modeled for them. When it comes time for them to exercise authority, what are they going to do but what they learned by example?

If this wild theory is right, then a (long-term) answer is for schools to stop teaching our kids that this is how society should work.

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#304

Post by jshevek »

aeturnum wrote: post #42
justinmk wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What parts of that email are so objectionable?

Uh, I suppose the name calling, strawman-ing of arguments and insinuations of subterfuge. > toxic loonytoon > The actual goal of the movement behind the ESD > banishing contributors for wrongthink > The "Persona Non Grata" clause is best understood as an attempt to paralyze resistance to such political ratfucking Like I said I don't know the OSI culture (or this context) but nothing about this message strikes me as s…

I was not familiar with this term:

>Ratfucking is an American slang term for political sabotage or dirty tricks

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratfucking

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#305

Post by [deleted] »

asveikau wrote: post #264
nemo44x wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's just a power grab and has gone on forever in many forms. Redefine language and classify certain language as non-compliant under the guise of whatever it is that works to your advantage. Then use this to create systemic policy to dictate towards your goals and ultimately control whatever resource it is you were trying to colonize or acquire. Language is power and can greatly influence and define what masses of pe…

Why do you consider it a power grab sooner than, say, people acting in good faith who really believe in their stated values?

[deleted]

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#306

Post by Brian_K_White »

asveikau wrote: post #298
meowface wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can be both. Many power grabs and coups are performed by people with a good faith belief that they're right and the current administration is wrong or dangerous.

Yet I feel like "power grab" is a loaded description that implies such a "grab" is unjustified and that the grabber is primarily interested in power for power's sake, not for otherwise justifiable, altruistic, or benevolent reasons.

Because it is a bad thing regardless who does it. If the supposed good guys were actually as good as they thought they were, they would simply aim to do whatever jobs need doing with as much integrity as they posess. They wouldn't be grabbing power, for any reason. There is no "enlightened" reason to grab power. If you don't like how someone else runs something, it's not your only option to try to take it over from them. You can also simply not join that club and not care what it does or how it does it. An organization like OSI isn't like a geographical country where you are forced to be in it, and so there is some legitimate excuse for actively vying for control over it and it's policies.

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#308

Post by zozbot234 »

adrianmonk wrote: post #303
nrclark wrote: post #59

I've read a bunch of ESR's writing, and I disagree with him on an awful lot of political and social issues. Chances are we wouldn't get along very well. Tone-policing, cancel culture, and identity politics are a real problem though, and it seems like they're getting out of hand. This is happening everywhere though - it's not unique to the open source world at all. I don't know what the right solution is. ESR and RMS…

> I don't know what the right solution is. This is a bit of a wild theory, which I definitely can't prove, but I am tempted to blame part of it on "zero tolerance" schools. Schools are meant to teach the material, but they're also meant to give students practice at working within a social framework. Being on time, speaking in turn, keeping track of assignments, relating to peers, etc. People have a lot of opinions on…

Authoritarianism in schools is very old; it definitely didn't begin with what are now called "zero tolerance" policies. I'm pretty sure we would have noticed if attending an authoritarian school gave you an authoritarian personality style, especially given the interest in the latter in post-WW2 psych studies.

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#309

Post by jraph »

api wrote: post #248
kazinator wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can you imagine Linux in a world where companies like Google don't contribute kernel patches? Not only can I imagine, but I lived in that world. > Because I think that would look like a world where all the best OSes were proprietary. Linux was excellent before ... Google even existed.

There's a good chance Google wouldn't exist without it.

Had Linux not existed, the world would possibly run on something based on a BSD kernel today, Google included. Maybe with a GNU userspace, maybe not.

And LineageOS would probably have a hard time existing because the manufacturers would not be forced to release their kernels.

We might have proprietary kernels optimised for Intel CPUs, too.

The FSF might also have decided to continue the development of Hurd, or someone to write improvements to a BSD kernel under a GPL license.

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#310

Post by yellowapple »

moomin wrote: post #28

If you want to understand ESR, you should read this that he wrote back in 1995: http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/dancing.html

> Rituals are programs written in the symbolic language of the unconscious mind. Religions are program libraries that share critical subroutines. And the Gods represent subystems in the wetware being programmed. All humans have potential access to pretty much the same major gods because our wetware design is 99% shared.

> Only...that cold and mechanistic a way of thinking about the Gods simply will not work when you want to evoke one. For full understanding, the Apollonian/scientific mode is essential; for direct experience, the Dionysian/ecstatic mode is the only way to go.

That resonated surprisingly strongly with me.

Post reply on HN