531–540 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
why write tests? why improve ux or ui? why help with documentation? > I mean if you can't contribute code why simply mess around with things like the Code of Conduct. there are many more parts to a community, even a community of developers, than just contributing code.
>why write tests? why improve ux or ui? why help with documentation? Because these actually improve the project.
The other huge news here, both for Linux and for numerous other communities trying to make similar changes: The most recent commit, right before the release, deletes Linux's "Code of Conflict" and replaces it with a real Code of Conduct, the Contributor Covenant. https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/lin... https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/code-of-condu... Quoting the commit message:…
Adopting a code of conduct for Linux is a worrisome move. Any code of conduct that purports to police what contributors do outside the context of the project is a totalitarian infringement on individual autonomy, especially since enforcers of codes of conduct tend to take an expansive view of their remit. What CoC enforcement eventually becomes is a prohibition on project contributors professing political opinions th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's pretty much the opposite of postmodernism actually is.
I was forced to take a unit of postmodernism as part of my studies and came away no wiser as to what postmodernism actually is. There was a bunch of dense, impenetrable academic word games that seemed to be asserting that all truth is culturally relative. I don't find gravity or physics to be culturally relative.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem here is that the "Collaborating" sector is the wrong goal for the Linux kernel. Linus Torvalds is uniquely qualified to be concerned about matters concerning the kernel; if his interlocutors "win" too much on their side of the "win/win", every user loses. The public embarrassment of lazy and dishonest actors, especially those who are paid to collaborate, is an effective tool for maintaining order and stan…
> if his interlocutors "win" too much on their side of the "win/win", every user loses. You seem to be trying to find a way to turn this back into "win/lose". Try another interpretation. For instance, a patch might call attention to a problem, but it takes the wrong approach to solve it. Could we find a better solution to the problem? Nobody is suggesting giving bad code or bad ideas a pass. Are you under the impress…
In the situation where Linus is far more qualified, and obviously so, and someone is trying to get him to "approve" a patch, there's no way it's ever really going to be a truly collaborative dynamic.
This doesn't mean Linus has to be a dick about it, but it's definitely not collaboration between equals.
Newton was an asshole too. The whole "apple fell on his head" story came about because he was so mean to people. I won't say that most geniuses are inempathetic, but many are. Einstein wasn't, some say Gauss was. Beethoven was. Linus is. And we'll accept Linus's attitude for being an aversion to bullshit, just the quality that we need in a kernel maintainer. I'm glad to see that Linus finally realizes that he has a p…
Einstein's letters to Mileva make me feel that maybe empathy wasn't his strong suit, either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Linus Torvalds is uniquely qualified Gotta stop you right there. Hero worship should not be considered a good thing in our industry. The kernel subsystem maintainers, who actually review the code prior to getting it merged, are the ones with the real power and the necessary knowledge, and I'd argue they are more qualified to oversee the project's future than Torvalds.
What makes Torvalds uniquely qualified is he is: 1) Technically capable of maintaining the kernel 2) Known to be mainly motivated by technical concerns If you role the dice with another governance structure, you might get one that is motivated by "collaboration" and then the integrity of the kernel might get compromised by corporate interests. We have no idea how the subsystem maintainers would deal with the politics…
I don’t know how we ended up at a point where we believe the only way to tell someone “No” or “You need to do better.” is through incredibly aggressive interactions. I suspect it’s just another hold over from a different time period, and we just never asked “Why?”
It sounds like he believes that treating other humans with respect won’t shatter him and I tend to agree with this assumption. His fundamental personality won’t go away and his skills certainly won’t suddenly disappear.
I’m interested to hear more regarding your comments about corporate interests. While I strongly and completely agree that we must resist letting their interests work their way into being driving forces, I’m not clear why some believe his most egregious behaviors are needed to keep these separations of intersts in place.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was forced to take a unit of postmodernism as part of my studies and came away no wiser as to what postmodernism actually is. There was a bunch of dense, impenetrable academic word games that seemed to be asserting that all truth is culturally relative. I don't find gravity or physics to be culturally relative.
Modernism is Descartes` "I will find a single indisputable axiom and can prove everything knowable from there." His axiom? "Cogito ergo sum." Postmodernism is rooted in the notion that there is no indisputable base axiom from which we can build our understanding of the world. It's unprovable assumptions all the way down. The consequences for this, if you accept it (you don't have to, but you're going to have a hell o…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> ”I'll take an asshole over a pushover any day“ This is a false dichotomy. There’s no need to be an asshole to not be a pushover.
Actually, it isn't. For example in today's environment when someone suggests something stupid, it is no longer acceptable to say "this seems stupid to me" because it might hurt someone's feelings. So instead you walk it back and say things diplomatically (which is a tiny form of a white lie). Then people reply to your diplomatic statement with another diplomatic statement, and pretty soon nobody is saying the thing t…
Linus is stubborn, persistent, and unyielding to what he sees as bullshit. These I believe are all very valuable qualities for the head of a massive software project, and may be part of the reason as to why Linux is where it is today. However, Linus is also a bit of an asshole, turning technical criticism into personal seemingly personal attacks. I believe those 2 sets of qualities are separable, but I would guess it…
He should be the judge of that.
Linus is stubborn, persistent, and unyielding to what he sees as bullshit. These I believe are all very valuable qualities for the head of a massive software project, and may be part of the reason as to why Linux is where it is today. However, Linus is also a bit of an asshole, turning technical criticism into personal seemingly personal attacks. I believe those 2 sets of qualities are separable, but I would guess it…
I'd bet people tend to cluster onto the line separating "agreeable and lax" and "rude but firm" (as a sweeping generality) Consider this: A third category of people who are able to accomplish their goals by rallying others to their cause. They are essentially imposing their will on others, but are able to do it in a way that is not "rude." This is called charisma. - "Agreeable and lax"... you allow them to paint the…
Like Linus.