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

Rename GTFO to GOAWAY

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 91 posts

Re: Rename GTFO to GOAWAY

#11

Post by vonmoltke »

> GTFO is crass and doesn't belong in internet standards.

Oh, STFU.

Seriously, though, I see the point. I'm kinda torn on issues likes this. On one hand, language in a standard, particularly as it relates to implemented messages, should meet some minimum level of decorum and avoid colloquialisms. On the other hand, stuffy language battles are pointless and distract from the primary goal of releasing a usable standard with usable error messages. On this particular issue I lean towards the former winning out.

Edit: someone else mentioned the word I was trying to think of.

Re: Rename GTFO to GOAWAY

#12

Post by crystaln »

mason240 wrote: post #4

People are staring to really scrape the bottom of barrel of things to be upset about.

Doesn't seem like anyone is so much upset as advocating for a reasonable change to remove an unnecessarily crass and unfunny joke from a standard.

Re: Rename GTFO to GOAWAY

#13

Post by phoen »

vonmoltke wrote: post #11

> GTFO is crass and doesn't belong in internet standards. Oh, STFU. Seriously, though, I see the point. I'm kinda torn on issues likes this. On one hand, language in a standard, particularly as it relates to implemented messages, should meet some minimum level of decorum and avoid colloquialisms. On the other hand, stuffy language battles are pointless and distract from the primary goal of releasing a usable standard…

Understanding by the greatest possible number of people should be the goal here, in my opinion.

GOAWAY makes plenty sense when compared to GTFO, assuming that not everyone who learns of it intentionally is well-versed in that of which GTFO is a relatively smaller part. Grandma wouldn't necessarily get GTFO (right away, anyway) but she would likely pick up GOAWAY in a snap.

Of course, the above assumes a section of people who are fluent (enough?) in English to grok the spec.

EDIT: Grammerr.

EDIT: Clarification in response to Vonmoltke.

Re: Rename GTFO to GOAWAY

#15

Post by genericuser »

I personally am a fan of professional tools breaking away from the need to be serious all the time.

It is just that I experience joy when I find little things like GTFO in the world which not only make sense in their context but have a bit of humor. So I guess I just disagree with the idea that standards should not contain anything crass.

Also I have a question concerning the 4th point as I am admittedly unfamiliar with the HTTP 2.0 spec.

"GTFO, if it really stands for "General Termination of Future Operations," has a surprising definition and may produce confusion. We should strive for absolute clarity above all else in editorial changes."

Can someone elaborate on what the confusion it would produce would be?

Re: Rename GTFO to GOAWAY

#16

Post by SDGT »

vonmoltke wrote: post #11

> GTFO is crass and doesn't belong in internet standards. Oh, STFU. Seriously, though, I see the point. I'm kinda torn on issues likes this. On one hand, language in a standard, particularly as it relates to implemented messages, should meet some minimum level of decorum and avoid colloquialisms. On the other hand, stuffy language battles are pointless and distract from the primary goal of releasing a usable standard…

The type of people that actually get offended by this stuff are rarely those involved with actually working with the protocol.

I like this stuff. It reminds me that humans with a sense of humor build the things we use everyday, and not some emotionless robot.

Re: Rename GTFO to GOAWAY

#17

Post by vonmoltke »

phoen wrote: post #13
vonmoltke wrote: post #11

> GTFO is crass and doesn't belong in internet standards. Oh, STFU. Seriously, though, I see the point. I'm kinda torn on issues likes this. On one hand, language in a standard, particularly as it relates to implemented messages, should meet some minimum level of decorum and avoid colloquialisms. On the other hand, stuffy language battles are pointless and distract from the primary goal of releasing a usable standard…

Understanding by the greatest possible number of people should be the goal here, in my opinion. GOAWAY makes plenty sense when compared to GTFO, assuming that not everyone who learns of it intentionally is well-versed in that of which GTFO is a relatively smaller part. Grandma wouldn't necessarily get GTFO (right away, anyway) but she would likely pick up GOAWAY in a snap. Of course, the above assumes a section of pe…

And GOAWAY is not clear and understandable from its name?

Re: Rename GTFO to GOAWAY

#20

Post by zxcdw »

pohl wrote: post #10
yid wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody seems upset. This is about professionalism.

I wouldn't say that it has anything to do with the competence or skill expected of a professional. It's more a matter of decorum. Edit: I recognize that there are those who would like to load more connotations onto the term, but I think that even the above definition is just a bunch of marketing fluff promulgated by those who stand to benefit from people believing that they'll get a better result from paying someone…

Professionalism is much more than competence and/or skill, just like good sports is about good sportsmanship too.
Post reply on HN