There is one principle inherent in our shared existence which does and must govern _all_ our interactions - that we must respect others just as we want respect for ourselves. We all know when we are offended or infringed upon in some way, and by that built-in standard we all know when we are offending or infringing on someone else. We do not need to go look it up in some list or code to see if it applies.

The problem with codes of conduct and lists is the same as the problem of adopting new laws to govern our conduct - they inherently open the doors wide for abuse. If it isn't on the list, it isn't strictly applicable no matter how obvious or absurd, and there is always someone willing to engage in the absurd simply because it isn't included in the rules!

It isn't possible to cover every potential abuse, comment, sleight or slur with any list, and if you try you are asking the impossible of those who must abide by it - no one could understand it or remember it!

So instead of laws and codes of conduct we must to look for some guiding natural principle, and I would argue that you cannot improve on the simplicity, inherent fairness and universal applicability of the principle of reciprocal, mutual respect - dealing with others just as we would want others to deal with us, in all matters.

That is the very foundation principle of FREE Software - mutual respect between all parties, and it works. We must remember that it really isn't all about the technology and open source code, it is really all about the Freedom and equillibrium provided by that simple principle of shared, mutual respect. That comes from within, not from an imposed set of rules. It is in fact all about the maximum degree of Freedom for all, from someone else' rules...

2 members found this post helpful.

i sure hope you're right.

nevertheless, there is cause for concern.
...and they sure would love to get some real power on these issues.
have you seen Ehmke's CoC beacon gofundme page, talking about an enforcement and policing SaaS? it's worrying.
i will not click it; how much funding did it gather so far?

Why does that matter?
It's just a text telling people to be nice.

Weird fact, only two groups are making a big deal over this and both are on the opposite side of the (extreme) political spectrum.
Does that make any sense at all ... ?

The fuss is because some of us have seen the harm that can be caused in a workplace when a CoC gets hijacked in order to increase a system gamer's political power. It's not just telling people to be nice, it's also giving a narrow definition what isn't nice.

I'm against the code because of the way it's written - it's just too easy to be misused. And in the US I'd be considered more than just a little "left wing" in my politics [edit: I read your post as meaning "left wing" people are generally for the CoC and "right wing" people are generally against it].

Looks like I'm not the only one who thinks this got toxic on both sides.

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-45664640

2 members found this post helpful.

Apparently Sage Sharp is attempting to block Theo Tso from contributing to the kernel.

Ref: https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comme...eveloper_theo/
https://hackr.io/news/intro-to-progr...er-theo-tso-is
https://twitter.com/_sagesharp_/stat...69399596437504
https://www.voat.co/v/technology/2732434
https://8ch.net/tech/res/973657.html

Just one nitpick:
True, because taking offence is a feeling that occurs when we believe our subjective standards have been infringed upon.
Not true at all, because there is no objective standard for offensiveness, and obviously we cannot possibly know the subjective standards of every other person on the planet. Case in point: Do you know that some people seriously consider the existence of a mount command to be "problematic"?

The way I see it, at least part of the problem lies in this: Many of us have lived in reasonably culturally homogeneous societies all our lives, and that has led us to falsely believe that there are such a thing as an objective, or at least generally accepted standard for morality, behaviour and offensiveness. But that's just an illusion, one that's now being shattered by a vocal group of people who want to impose a new morality on everybody else.

This video does a pretty good job of summarizing the "problem" of offensiveness: There is no problem, unless one goes out of ones way to create one.

Kernel Dev's Strike Back?

"...A controversy over politics is now seeing some of its developers threatening to withdraw the license to all of their code, potentially destroying or making the whole Linux kernel unusable for a very long time..."
https://lulz.com/linux-devs-threaten...troversy-1252/

An open Letter to Linux kernel mailing list
https://archive.fo/vJCtJ

Linux vs Social Justice Warriors
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddD6Yn3XZuM

1 members found this post helpful.

So one way or another, it looks like the Linux nuclear self destruct sequence is about to start*. Everyone got their bugout bag** packed?

*CoC succeeds where SCO failed.

**Kernel fork or OpenBSD - any other realistic alternatives?

Many people have contributed and spent hours, weeks and even years working on the Linux kernel. I feel that it is unfair to just call it quits, don't you think?

I personally don't think the situation will go to the point where suddenly a lot of developers decide to change the licensing of their code or go to a path where they leave the Linux kernel in an unusable state, I mean, if it came down to that, then, would people really be eager to just fork OpenBSD's kernel and try and adapt to it? After some time, wouldn't there be a possibility of the exact same thing to happen again?

I don't know how this'll unfold, life holds many surprises. But until we see solid and verified evidence that the kernel has gone downhill enough that is unreliable, until then, I suggest holding your horses

i don't think you're talking about the same web page here.
on the gofundme page, ehmke is asking for funding to enforce the CoC by means of "Software as a Service" (a.k.a cloud app).

i hate comments like these.
some online dwellers, whenever faced with a complex discussion, seem to revert to an extreme black-and-white view of things.
but being against something does not mean that i am on the extreme opposite politically.
i have even been called alt-right recently. just for the record, i am not.
whatever the term means.

I for one will certainly refrain from using any such terms for the time being; i want to make a thought-through argument, not wrap my discomfort into a derogative buzzword.

and i do not condone people behaving in a hateful and, frankly, illegal manner, like this.
here's my reply on another forum (slightly edited):
PS: and whatever some people feel the need to say, i am not being toxic.
but i do want a discussion, and show my disagreement.

Never mind. After posting I realised I had misinterpreted the person I quoted.

If there is a purge of Linux developers and if their replacements are chosen on the basis of who they are instead of how they code then many people will lose confidence in Linux as a useable OS. IF it retains the name - Linus Torvalds owns the brand and he may well have a word to say about what gets called what. But whatever it's called, the last few decades' worth of work will have gone down the drain. Call this self destruct sequence A.

I think there would be a reluctance to behave in a manner which many would see as unprofessional. Unfortunately Linux management is in danger of entering an unprofessional, political, phase where might makes right. It may well come to pass that their only bargaining tool left is the threat of withdrawing their contributions - and empty threats are a waste of time. Call this self destruct sequence B.

Edit: It would appear that this scenario is no longer likely, at least for the kernel in its current form.



Debian did this a few years ago, proving that it is viable. If BSD/Slackware (for example) was available, I'd try it out so fast I'd be risking windburn.

The best outcome from my point of view would be for sanity to prevail and a reasonable* CoC put in place if people are more comfortable with one. And a GNU/BSD distro being available would be a bonus**.

Second best would be for the kernel to fork.

Third would be bailing out when destruct sequence A or B starts. If (or when) this happens we won't lose Linux that day or the day after, but we will lose it; when you start preparing depends on how vital free or open source software is to your use case.

I can't think of a fourth.

Since people are involved, it's not a low probability. We need to draw lessons from this mess.


*One that isn't easily abused - we need a good lawyer.

**As soon as we have a 28 hour day.

I wonder how much of this is conditioned by the fact that hackers tend to be on the autistic spectrum. If you look at some of the traditional articles on the "hacker mentality", the overlap with high-functioning autism or Asperger's is quite striking.

I'm on the spectrum myself, though closer to the neurotypical end of it. I do have theory of mind, in the sense that I know that other people are centres of consciousness with contents different from my own. But I have no idea what goes on in there. When I see people interacting, I often get the impression that they are using telepathy. Each somehow knows exactly what effect his words are having and adjusts them accordingly. I can't do that, so I often offend people. But those who know me are not offended because they know I don't mean to offend.

Now put together a group of people who think like that and another group who are accustomed to scan every utterance for potentially offensive content, and you have an explosive combination. It doesn't necessarily mean that these people are out to destroy Linux. What after all would they gain from that? But they may do enormous damage simply by misunderstanding the kind of people they are dealing with.

This is how it started with Bill Gates and Microsoft going to crap. The same will happen to Linux if Linus don't tighten up his ship.