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

491–500 of 528 posts

Re: Who controls glibc?

#491

Post by keiyakins »

vbezhenar wrote: post #207
RIMR wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or, if you're going to be subtly political (as GNU often is), at least be current. That joke was 20-something years old. It ran its course. Also, as far as calling LGBT rainbows "political", I would have to disagree. You either view LBGT people as equal, or you can be a hateful person. There's no good reason to pander to the latter, but plenty of reasons to stand up in unity with the former. There are some concepts t…

I was raised in a country with very hateful views against LGBT. While I, personally, developed a tolerance against LGBT, a lot of people around me did not and those people often work as developers. Showing them any sign of LGBT propaganda is a great offence to them. I'm not lawyer, but I suspect that LGBT propaganda might even be against a law. I guess, the same could be said about abortion jokes. Some people might t…

Fuck 'em. I'm not going to bend over backwards to coddle people who hate me for daring to exist. As for laws, I think the late Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said it best: "I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws."

Re: Who controls glibc?

#492

Post by dc443 »

chx wrote: post #309

Stallman has his problems. He is like Cassandra, talking, talking, talking for decades about dangers, they come true and still noone listens. Already in 2002 and 2010 he has expressed suicidal thoughts https://www.wired.com/2010/04/ff_hackers/all/1/ I am saying to help understand him not to say he is right here.

Cassandra who?

Re: Who controls glibc?

#494

Post by keiyakins »

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…

> This comment was document of its time, several decades ago. Software has history. Everything humans do has history.

So, should we never change documentation once it's written? When the technical details change, should the documentation become inaccurate because it's a record of the time? When the political and linguistic context changes and makes a joke cause confusion rather than laughs should we continue including it in new versions?

No, of course not. We should fix it. History is indeed important, that's why version control was invented. Access to the old versions isn't going anywhere.

Re: Who controls glibc?

#495

Post by michaelmrose »

lmitchell wrote: post #214
jsmthrowaway wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m much more concerned about him playing the “childbirth is far more traumatic than having an abortion” card in the discussion about the patch. Until this moment, I wasn’t even aware that was a card. It’s difficult to fathom the logic that would arrive at that statement making sense to someone typing it, particularly a person who will never experience the situations upon which he’s speaking conclusively. You’re righ…

I guess I understand the downvotes here, but I really do think you've hit on at least an issue. Maybe not the issue, but it's a pretty big problem. RMS's conduct here is just... pretty inappropriate. Jokes about abortion, rape, race, sexual orientation, etc, etc, are not something you should be touching as the maintainer of a public project, no matter what your opinions are or how strongly you hold them. The glibc ma…

Why did you bring in "Jokes about abortion, rape, race, sexual orientation, etc, etc,". When the joke was actually about censorship?

Re: Who controls glibc?

#496

Post by michaelmrose »

dragonwriter wrote: post #298
jsmthrowaway wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m much more concerned about him playing the “childbirth is far more traumatic than having an abortion” card in the discussion about the patch. Until this moment, I wasn’t even aware that was a card. It’s difficult to fathom the logic that would arrive at that statement making sense to someone typing it, particularly a person who will never experience the situations upon which he’s speaking conclusively. You’re righ…

> I’m much more concerned about him playing the “childbirth is far more traumatic than having an abortion” card in the discussion about the patch. Until this moment, I wasn’t even aware that was a card. It’s difficult to fathom the logic that would arrive at that statement making sense to someone typing it, particularly a person who will never experience the situations upon which he’s speaking conclusively. It's a st…

Well aren't the majority of what rabid pro life considers abortions taking some pills and having a bad morning or in some loonies cases putting on a condom?

Re: Who controls glibc?

#497

Post by rurban »

earenndil wrote: post #471
rurban wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is in fact the most used, and arguably technically superior to glibc. freebsd -> darwin, openbsd, netbsd and dragonfly bsd. openbsd and netbsd like to add their own stuff on top of it also. The Open Watcom libc and bionic are also superior. bionic is getting better and better recently. musl is in some parts better, in some parts worse. Same for Embarcadero C++ libc. Worse than glibc are only: the two MS libc's,…

> Worse than glibc are only [lists as many libcs as are better than it] Perhaps glibc isn't that bad...

Oh it is. I've listed more quirks here, from the testsuite I've written for all libc's.

https://rurban.github.io/safeclib/doc/safec-3.3/d1/dae/md_do...

Re: Who controls glibc?

#498

Post by 45h34jh53k4j »

dc443 wrote: post #492
chx wrote: post #309

Stallman has his problems. He is like Cassandra, talking, talking, talking for decades about dangers, they come true and still noone listens. Already in 2002 and 2010 he has expressed suicidal thoughts https://www.wired.com/2010/04/ff_hackers/all/1/ I am saying to help understand him not to say he is right here.

Cassandra who?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassandra_(metaphor)

RMS is typically correct, even if at the time the industry thinks he is being melodramatic. Everything he said has come true. You either listen to his rants and consider the ramifications, or you watch as all your digital rights are eroded.

Re: Who controls glibc?

#500

Post by smsm42 »

craigsmansion wrote: post #376
smsm42 wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And no one else has a real argument here other than "it's unprofessional and embarassing and we want it gone". No one needs any better argument. It's unprofessional, and it's embarrassing (both as poorly executed joke and as political advocacy bolted onto the technical manual). RMS has a perfectly good personal site and lots of speaking engagements where he is very welcome to advocate whatever he likes and people a…

> No one needs any better argument. It's unprofessional I do. If you want professional, there are plenty of professional proprietary vendors out there. Or if you insist on Free Software, probably the BSDs are more professional. GNU is a social project first, with quality and professionalism being secondary considerations. The whole argument is about the removal of a statement against censorship (interpreted by some a…

> If you want professional, there are plenty of professional proprietary vendors out there

I do not see existence of other professional vendors a valid reason for behaving unprofessionaly. Nobody says RMS should behave professionally because otherwise there would be no professional vendors left. He should behave professionally because it's the right thing to do in this context, not because of availability concerns.

> GNU is a social project first

No, not really. Almost all effort is dedicated to code and surrounding matters (yes, GPL too), and very little is dedicated to societal change as such.

> with quality and professionalism being secondary considerations.

If it were true, GNU projects would die long ago. Nobody needs a compiler or a shell that is social project first and quality software second. Nobody would use it (ok, maybe a dozen or so of people would, but that's it). Fortunately, it is not the case at all.

> rms is known for being difficult, not for being wrong.

He's known for both. He has been wrong plenty. He also has been right plenty, including in many important things, but that doesn't make him infallible.

Post reply on HN