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

Who controls glibc?

lwn.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 528 posts

Re: Who controls glibc?

#411

Post by geezerjay »

DandyDev wrote: post #335
rurban wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He might not be the maintainer, but he is the BDFL. It's about respect. See what happened to Drepper who violated his respect. I like the joke, and I sympathize with RMS to let it in. In any case he opposed it so there is now a power struggle about the control of his project. I would love to see a better maintained glibc btw. Too much politics, not enough competence.

The dictator in question certainly doesn't seem Benevolent to me in this case.

> The dictator in question certainly doesn't seem Benevolent to me in this case.

I don't see the point. RMS directs the organization and establises the policy it follows. I fail to see how a maintainer could feel entitled to dictate that policy just because he has access to the repository. That would be like a printing press janitor feeling entitled to censor what he feels a newspaper should not publish.

Re: Who controls glibc?

#412

Post by matheusmoreira »

sanxiyn wrote: post #286
Jerry2 wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Problem is selective enforcement. They have a member on their core team who has advocated violence in the past. It's just that it's violence against white people so it's "OK". They also have another person who is advocating violence against men. But again, their 'thought police' cops haven't done a thing.

I want to defend Rust project here. You should realize that Rust CoC is scoped to official Rust project space. > They have a member on their core team who has advocated violence in the past. It's just that it's violence against white people so it's "OK". As far as I know, the member you are referring to never advocated violence in the official Rust project space. That's enough for Rust.

This directly contradicts other CoC enforcement cases:

https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941

>publicly calling trans people out for "not accepting reality" on Twitter.

>His Twitter profile mentions that he is a core contributor to opal.

>Is this what the other maintainers want to be reflected in the project?

>Will any transgender developers feel comfortable contributing?

There is no reason to believe these people are impartial.

Re: Who controls glibc?

#413

Post by JoachimS »

To me the most interesting aspect of the story is not that RMS has a God card. The interesting aspect is that RMS decided that blocking the change was so important that using the card was warranted. As RMS stated himself, he is using this power so rarely that developers don't know that it exist.

Why was preserving an old joke important enough to do this?

Re: Who controls glibc?

#414

Post by majewsky »

dfox wrote: post #178
djsumdog wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not that hardcore about it, but I still agree this really shouldn't be in the official docs. Maybe in a tutorial or a set of slides. I do agree with some professionalism in things that want to be taken seriously. I don't even really like the "Apt with super cow powers." I do agree this isn't about political correctness. At one time GNU tools were just a bunch of devs trying to write open source tooling for fun or…

My feeling is that most of GNU manuals in texinfo format are borderline useless because the structure is simply wrong, the random jokes are somewhat tangential issue.

Word. GNU texinfo is so fucking confusing that I only ever invoke it as

  info --subnodes -o - $PROGRAM | less
That dumps the entire manual for $PROGRAM into `less`, where I can then use regex-searches like a normal humanbeing.

Re: Who controls glibc?

#415

Post by majewsky »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #303
pishpash wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The early days of computing was very informal and full of jokes. Didn't stop people from creating some of the most long-lasting and technically successful tools.

Maybe even helped them. Those tools create in informal atmosphere seem much more robust and useful than what the present day brings.

I think a large part of this is survivorship bias. We just don't see all the crap that was created back in the day because it didn't stick around.

Re: Who controls glibc?

#416

Post by Allan_Smithee »

tempz wrote: post #261

The ideological control - via identity politics and associated infantile concepts of safe spaces, trigger words and the 'right not to be offended' - has finally landed on the mainstream open source software development, after preparatory excursions into gaming, Tor and few other 'fringish' niches. This ideological carpet bombing was neccessary because there is no other way to control the open source community - there…

I'm curious: is this really the hill Stallmanistas have chosen to die on? Really? A not very funny, not very helpful, and to anybody not living in the sphere of Batshitstania (a.k.a. the USA) absolutely incomprehensible joke? This is what you want to go to war over?

Talk of identity politics overriding common sense!

Re: Who controls glibc?

#417

Post by badsectoracula »

JoachimS wrote: post #413

To me the most interesting aspect of the story is not that RMS has a God card. The interesting aspect is that RMS decided that blocking the change was so important that using the card was warranted. As RMS stated himself, he is using this power so rarely that developers don't know that it exist. Why was preserving an old joke important enough to do this?

My understanding is that RMS doesn't see it as just a joke but a form of protest through a joke relevant to the name of the function in question and that asking him to remove it is seen similarly to asking a protester to only protest in designated protest areas during designated protest hours where they cannot bother anyone. If you see it like that and not just as a harmless old joke, it makes more sense why RMS is riled up.

Re: Who controls glibc?

#418

Post by jacobush »

eesmith wrote: post #406
wiz21c wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>> A CEO is not dictator well, he definitely is for those under him (not those besides).

I've been trying to figure out an answer which was more concrete than "I disagree", and ran into the problem that I can't figure out what "dictator" is supposed to mean, other than "person in authority whom I disagree with." I mean, people called Obama a dictator ( https://www.marketwatch.com/story/americans-newly-see-obama-... ), Jeremy Corby ( http://www.livetradingnews.com/jeremy-corbyn-turns-dictator-... ), a tea…

People call all sorts of things, all sorts of words. It's common in discourse to use a little hyperbole. That does not make Obama, or Jeremy Corbyn, bona fide dictators.

Even as stated, you miss the mark. The president is chief of the executive branch of the US, yes. But the president is not chief of congress, or the judicial system.

Re: Who controls glibc?

#419

Post by TeMPOraL »

majewsky wrote: post #415
TeMPOraL wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe even helped them. Those tools create in informal atmosphere seem much more robust and useful than what the present day brings.

I think a large part of this is survivorship bias. We just don't see all the crap that was created back in the day because it didn't stick around.

Come to think of it, I guess you're right.

Re: Who controls glibc?

#420

Post by wiz21c »

eesmith wrote: post #406
wiz21c wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>> A CEO is not dictator well, he definitely is for those under him (not those besides).

I've been trying to figure out an answer which was more concrete than "I disagree", and ran into the problem that I can't figure out what "dictator" is supposed to mean, other than "person in authority whom I disagree with." I mean, people called Obama a dictator ( https://www.marketwatch.com/story/americans-newly-see-obama-... ), Jeremy Corby ( http://www.livetradingnews.com/jeremy-corbyn-turns-dictator-... ), a tea…

I think there is no other way to be a dictator (as long as he's appointed byt the board).

Now what is a dictator to me ? A dictator is someone you can't disagree with. The dictator may be benevolent or not, may exercise his power or not, but in the end he's the one in power. And you can't disagree with him because you have much less power (he can fire you, he's got the money, he decides on what you work, you're the one who needs the job, etc.). Just try to contest the authority (not the ideas, the style or whatever, just the authority) of your boss, and you'll see what happens.

Now from the board of director point of view, the CEO is not a dictator, he's someone who's running the company and giving advice on how to make it grow, make it better, whatever. So he's definitely in a positive role.

Could he be something else than a dictator ? Maybe. He could be "secretary" and then the power could be given to a part of the company's personnel, like a union. Those people would attend the board of director. But that would assume the fact that the board is willing to do that... I guess it's easier to scream on the CEO than on a group of people :-)

Post reply on HN