LinuxQuestions.org
Review your favorite Linux distribution.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - General
User Name
Password
Linux - General This Linux forum is for general Linux questions and discussion.
If it is Linux Related and doesn't seem to fit in any other forum then this is the place.

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 10-23-2018, 08:00 PM   #106
ntubski
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Distribution: Debian, Arch
Posts: 3,572

Rep: Reputation: 1885Reputation: 1885Reputation: 1885Reputation: 1885Reputation: 1885Reputation: 1885Reputation: 1885Reputation: 1885Reputation: 1885Reputation: 1885Reputation: 1885

https://lwn.net/Articles/766699/

Quote:
It is worth starting with one important point that last week's article failed to mention: the new code of conduct is not actually new to the community as a whole. In particular, the DRM (graphics) subsystem adopted the freedesktop.org code of conduct in April 2017. This code, like the code for the kernel as a whole, is derived from the Contributor Covenant text. There have not been any problems of note arising from the use of this code in that subsystem to date. Your editor has been told that the DRM community's successful use of this code was a direct contributor to Torvalds's choice of this particular code as a starting point for the kernel.
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 10-24-2018, 12:51 PM   #107
ondoho
LQ Addict
 
Registered: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,968
Blog Entries: 9

Rep: Reputation: 4236Reputation: 4236Reputation: 4236Reputation: 4236Reputation: 4236Reputation: 4236Reputation: 4236Reputation: 4236Reputation: 4236Reputation: 4236Reputation: 4236
it's interesting how everyone seems to be saying "there has been no problems with the new CoCs so far, so it's really just a feelgood thing, isn't it!"

seems familiar... not only from used car salesmen but also in larger contexts...

it's also not true, as some of the examples in this very thread illustrate.
 
3 members found this post helpful.
Old 10-24-2018, 04:00 PM   #108
fido_dogstoyevsky
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2015
Location: Victoria, Australia
Distribution: Slackware 14.2
Posts: 393
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 473Reputation: 473Reputation: 473Reputation: 473Reputation: 473
Quote:
Originally Posted by ondoho View Post
it's interesting how everyone seems to be saying "there has been no problems with the new CoCs so far, so it's really just a feelgood thing, isn't it!"...
As harmless as giving Richelieu six innocent lines of text*.



*"Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre" - which may or may not have been really said by the cardinal himself.
 
Old 10-25-2018, 04:00 AM   #109
YesItsMe
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2014
Posts: 655

Rep: Reputation: 250Reputation: 250Reputation: 250
If people think they can't contribute useful code because no code of chat speech ("conduct") is in place, chances are that those people aren't capable developers and should probably just go away. Does anyone here think that the CoC people will suddenly turn into highly skilled kernel hackers now?

I'm looking forward to their first non-prose contributions to Linux. With a large bag of popcorn.

Last edited by YesItsMe; 10-25-2018 at 04:01 AM.
 
2 members found this post helpful.
Old 11-20-2018, 04:21 AM   #110
cynwulf
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,417

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
I was recently made aware of the whole libreboot fiasco of 2 years ago. This was at another site, where someone linked to it as supposedly incontrovertible evidence that RMS discriminates against transgender people - in order to somehow strengthen their argument to have a certain unrelated joke removed from the glibc manual. True to form, that person did not research very well and completely missed the original accuser's apology to RMS, Sullivan and GNU/FSF (and application to rejoin GNU). It will come as no surprise that this person is also an avid supporter of the CoC.

It just shows how this kind of FUD can spread via the WWW and perpetuate despite retractions, clarifications and/or apologies. It shows how all of this can misinformation be conflated together and turned into some imagined scenario where free software development is somehow dominated by bigoted people, when this is clearly not true.

There are of course two sides to the coin - the accuser clearly played the "card" (so it does happen) and if it had been in a different situation in a different organisation with such a CoC in place and more corporate control/influence, the outcome might have been very different irrespective of supposed guilt - i.e. lives and reputations ruined/stained by what turned out to be a raft of false accusations.

What it boils down to is that CoCs are essentially a corporate tool, which only serve to protect the reputation of the controlling organisation, under the guise of protecting individuals from any source of offence... the reality is that there will inevitably be a scapegoat and a whitewash to avoid unwelcome media attention and bad PR.

Some "activist" groups have bought into this and use it to force their agenda/ideology, but in fact CoCs are a form of oppression which those groups should shun by default, in that they stifle independent thought and freedom of expression for the many, in order to supposedly protect the delicate sensibilities of a few. This is no different to censoring the activists in order to protect those who won't tolerate their views from any perceived offence.

In this excessively litigative society, a CoC is just another piece of arse covering, so that a company can tick some boxes to protect itself against claims and show that it was "doing something". If you have to fire a trans person because they're useless at their job, being able to wave around a CoC which explicitly defends such groups and other "minorities" can only help in the ensuing employment tribunal.

Last edited by cynwulf; 11-21-2018 at 05:47 AM. Reason: "last year"="2 years ago"
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 11-20-2018, 05:11 AM   #111
hazel
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2016
Location: Harrow, UK
Distribution: LFS, AntiX, Slackware
Posts: 4,484
Blog Entries: 11

Rep: Reputation: 2569Reputation: 2569Reputation: 2569Reputation: 2569Reputation: 2569Reputation: 2569Reputation: 2569Reputation: 2569Reputation: 2569Reputation: 2569Reputation: 2569
Quote:
Originally Posted by cynwulf View Post
I was recently made aware of the whole libreboot fiasco of last year. This was at another site, where someone linked to it as supposedly incontrovertible evidence that RMS discriminates against transgender people - in order to somehow strengthen their argument to have a certain unrelated joke removed from the glibc manual.
Oh do tell me where to find this joke! When I was teaching myself C a few years ago I read the glibc manual practically cover to cover but I never found any jokes in it.
 
Old 11-20-2018, 05:36 AM   #112
GazL
LQ Guru
 
Registered: May 2008
Distribution: CRUX
Posts: 5,519
Blog Entries: 14

Rep: Reputation: 3345Reputation: 3345Reputation: 3345Reputation: 3345Reputation: 3345Reputation: 3345Reputation: 3345Reputation: 3345Reputation: 3345Reputation: 3345Reputation: 3345
Code:
25.7.4 Aborting a Program
-------------------------

You can abort your program using the ‘abort’ function.  The prototype
for this function is in ‘stdlib.h’.

 -- Function: void abort (void)

     Preliminary: | MT-Safe | AS-Unsafe corrupt | AC-Unsafe lock corrupt
     | *Note POSIX Safety Concepts::.

     The ‘abort’ function causes abnormal program termination.  This
     does not execute cleanup functions registered with ‘atexit’ or
     ‘on_exit’.

     This function actually terminates the process by raising a
     ‘SIGABRT’ signal, and your program can include a handler to
     intercept this signal; see *note Signal Handling::.

   *Future Change Warning:* Proposed Federal censorship regulations may
prohibit us from giving you information about the possibility of calling
this function.  We would be required to say that this is not an
acceptable way of terminating a program.
Apparently, it's some sort of political snipe about it being illegal to disseminate information on abortion in the US. As a member of the larger part of the world that isn't the USA I can remember first reading it with a puzzled expression and having no clue what they were talking about.

It's just another example of the US centric focus everyone has become so accustomed to. Mind you, my country is just as bad (only on a smaller scale): one would think that nothing outside of London exists here!

Anyway, that's what all the fuss was about. Silly, isn't it.
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 11-20-2018, 06:00 AM   #113
hazel
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2016
Location: Harrow, UK
Distribution: LFS, AntiX, Slackware
Posts: 4,484
Blog Entries: 11

Rep: Reputation: 2569Reputation: 2569Reputation: 2569Reputation: 2569Reputation: 2569Reputation: 2569Reputation: 2569Reputation: 2569Reputation: 2569Reputation: 2569Reputation: 2569
Not bad. You can find ruder things in kernel code.
 
Old 11-20-2018, 06:29 AM   #114
GazL
LQ Guru
 
Registered: May 2008
Distribution: CRUX
Posts: 5,519
Blog Entries: 14

Rep: Reputation: 3345Reputation: 3345Reputation: 3345Reputation: 3345Reputation: 3345Reputation: 3345Reputation: 3345Reputation: 3345Reputation: 3345Reputation: 3345Reputation: 3345
meh, I'm of the opinion that it doesn't belong in the manual, but I don't really care one way or the other.


What I do find more concerning is that RMS took an authoritarian stance and overruled the glibc developers, telling them they had to leave it in. That seems completely at odds with the FSF's touted "4 essential freedoms" to me

I don't think RMS did himself any favours with this "Respect my Authoritah!" stance, especially given how completely inconsequential the change would have been.

Anyway, getting a little off the topic now, so I'll shut up.
 
Old 11-20-2018, 06:44 AM   #115
hazel
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2016
Location: Harrow, UK
Distribution: LFS, AntiX, Slackware
Posts: 4,484
Blog Entries: 11

Rep: Reputation: 2569Reputation: 2569Reputation: 2569Reputation: 2569Reputation: 2569Reputation: 2569Reputation: 2569Reputation: 2569Reputation: 2569Reputation: 2569Reputation: 2569
But Stallman does have an authoritarian streak. This is pretty obvious. I love the idea of free software but when I first started using Linux, I was perplexed by the insistence of the FSF crowd that only libre software should be used and that, if your computer didn't work without some proprietary blob, you should just buy another computer. I didn't see (and I still don't see) how that differs morally from the Microsoft argument that if the latest Windows doesn't run on your computer, you should buy a new one. People want stuff to work.

What exactly is the difference, psychologically speaking, between a pedantic insistence on free software even when it doesn't work and a pedantic insistence on certain kinds of politically correct attitudes even when they get in the way of well-functioning software development teams?
 
Old 11-20-2018, 08:43 AM   #116
zeebra
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2011
Distribution: Mageia, Slackware
Posts: 848
Blog Entries: 9

Rep: Reputation: 210Reputation: 210Reputation: 210
Freedom is the difference and FSF is right about their attitude towards freedom in a political, social and corporate world where freedoms are constantly being taken away. Considering the importance of computers and such in our society I would expect alot more support for FSF stands on things.. But the lack of this seems to fit with the general norm of not caring about freedom, and the type of "I'm willing to be enslaved if I can just get my hands on easy-x, easy-y or something similar for "dummies".

As a matter of fact, the fight is more important than ever, and I am surprised that nobody has really been fighting for owning your own hardware and hardware freedoms, as oppose to todays norm where it's hardware slaves or hardware zombies. There is no point in freedom respecting software if this cannot be used on any hardware.

And this fight might be the final nail in the coffin for both Linux, GNU, BSD and others if we look at how mobile/tablet technology has developed. You pay enourmous amounts of money for hardware you never own, that in fact owns you, and in addition puts spam on your phone and does not let you run any freedom respecting software. Authoritarian companies that control your everyday life in a way far worse than Microsoft ever did on computers with their tyrannical monopoly back in the days. These new generations of software companies not only want to control your device, they want to control you and your thoughts as well.

Efforts are surely underway to make this the case for regular computers as well.

This is the software you get, live with it and be happy about it and glorify the company who delivers it.. Poorly designed communist like hardware products with poorly designed software and absolutely no choice at all for regular consumers. No product that is any different from the rest, and this is what you HAVE to accept. If there were any better products or better designs out there, it would be a major threat to the tech giants and the free flow of money from you into their pockets, and this is surely something which cannot be accepted. Not only do they control your product and the software on it, they also control all relevant companies that can make any hardware, just to make sure no newcomer can design anything different than what is available today and can keep sucking the money out of consumers at a fast pace.

Last edited by zeebra; 11-20-2018 at 08:50 AM.
 
2 members found this post helpful.
Old 11-20-2018, 08:56 AM   #117
cynwulf
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,417

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by GazL View Post
It's just another example of the US centric focus everyone has become so accustomed to. Mind you, my country is just as bad (only on a smaller scale): one would think that nothing outside of London exists here!
GNU and BSD are understandably "US centric", due to their origins (US Universities, UNIX, etc), so I suppose such references are inevitable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GazL View Post
Anyway, that's what all the fuss was about. Silly, isn't it.
Agreed, it's a typical example of some people getting their knickers in a twist over something very trivial, as ever due to the potential for offence.
 
Old 11-20-2018, 09:11 AM   #118
hazel
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2016
Location: Harrow, UK
Distribution: LFS, AntiX, Slackware
Posts: 4,484
Blog Entries: 11

Rep: Reputation: 2569Reputation: 2569Reputation: 2569Reputation: 2569Reputation: 2569Reputation: 2569Reputation: 2569Reputation: 2569Reputation: 2569Reputation: 2569Reputation: 2569
I can agree with a lot of what Zeebra says. I don't myself own a mobile phone or a tablet, partly because I feel too old to ever learn to use one , but partly also because I hate the app/Facebook/always-online mentality that goes with them. Everyone you see on the street these days trails an umbilical cord connecting them to the Internet. They have happily traded their freedom and privacy for the most trivial kind of convenience.

A friend of mine, an intelligent and well educated woman, regularly uses her phone to tell her where she is and what distance she has jogged, oblivious of the fact that she is allowing FB and others to track her just as if she were a criminal wearing one of those leg irons (they have a name but I've forgotten what it is). When I pointed this out to her, she couldn't see that it was a problem.

People nowadays have little respect for their own or other people's political freedoms. I remember that when I was a child, people pooh-poohed Nineteen Eighty Four because they said people would never allow a system to be developed that let the government spy on them that way. They were wrong obviously. But I still think there is a difference between trading one's personal privacy for convenience and "free" services, and just wanting to be able to use a preferred operating system on one's computer without having to jump through hoops to satisfy some abstract idea of independence from proprietary software.

I hate today's political correctness culture because it offends the enlightenment tradition of free speech and free thought that I was raised in. I don't see the idea of free software, attractive as it is, to be as important as free speech or freedom from surveillance.
 
4 members found this post helpful.
Old 11-20-2018, 09:52 AM   #119
zeebra
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2011
Distribution: Mageia, Slackware
Posts: 848
Blog Entries: 9

Rep: Reputation: 210Reputation: 210Reputation: 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by hazel View Post
But I still think there is a difference between trading one's personal privacy for convenience and "free" services, and just wanting to be able to use a preferred operating system on one's computer without having to jump through hoops to satisfy some abstract idea of independence from proprietary software.
Well, this is one of the main issues. I understand the pragmatic needs, but this kills the fight. And I certainly don't think people who do not understand the issues have the right to criticize GNU/RMS/FSF for their stands when they just do not understand the core of the issue and the importance of it.

And as I said, the fight really should go much further, which is why I cannot understand why more people do not even support basic software freedom. Sure, wireless do not work with a free driver, but if we just give up and install a blob out of convenience, then we will never even fight for freedom respecting wifi, and nobody will even care to choose freedom respecting wifi instead of freedom stealing equivalents. Simply for convenience, convenience that kills the fight before it has even started.

As things are currently with software, it is a good compromise. Some things are not ideal, but at least they can work and choice is possible. But the real fight now is to ensure that when people buy hardware that they actually own that hardware and have the right to do with it as they please. Whatever method the hardware manufacturers use to give their customers actual ownership of their hardware is a good compromise, while the ideal is open hardware platforms. Anyways, the compromise result should be that people can install their own software on the hardware and have control of their hardware to a degree that they can choose what operating system, interface and so fourth they want to have on their own device.

But the world is moving in the opposite direction, where 70 year old music where the artist is dead is not even given over to the public domain for the benefit of society and the people in it. In addition one can patent ridiculous and obvious things and prevent anyone from building anything basic due to breaking patents that should never have been granted in the first place. In addition to control over the outsourced hardware manufacturers, patents of this type make it impossible for any new companies to make mobile phones in today's market unless they belong to "the club". This situation is even much worse than the PC market was with Microsoft and "the club" of hardware manufacturers who controlled the PC market completely in the past (and to a large degree still).
 
Old 11-20-2018, 11:04 AM   #120
hazel
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2016
Location: Harrow, UK
Distribution: LFS, AntiX, Slackware
Posts: 4,484
Blog Entries: 11

Rep: Reputation: 2569Reputation: 2569Reputation: 2569Reputation: 2569Reputation: 2569Reputation: 2569Reputation: 2569Reputation: 2569Reputation: 2569Reputation: 2569Reputation: 2569
This thread is probably drifting off-topic, given that it was originally about the conflict between modern political correctness and the male-dominated, strictly meritocratic culture of free software development. But while we are on the subject of freedom and hardware, there is a widespread suspicion that HP put secret firmware on their printers to stop them from working with low-cost refilled cartridges. A printer cannot explicitly refuse to work with such a cartridge (in the US courts, that has been ruled a restraint of trade) but a lot of people have noticed that HP printers work initially with non-oem cartridges but then mysteriously stop working. And if you complain, you are told, "It must have been a bad cartridge. What do you expect if you use cartridges that we don't recommend?"

HP have always been poster boys in the Linux community because they supply a completely open-source driver package. But what is the use of that if the hardware forces you into a closed supply chain? I will not use HP printers any more for that reason.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Linus Torvalds apologizes for behavior and takes a break from maintaining the Linux Kernel ChuangTzu Linux - News 18 09-19-2018 08:48 AM
LXer: Linus Torvalds Taking a Break, Help Krita Squash the Bugs, Vulnerability in Alpine Linux, Flatpak Now Works on Windows Subsystem for L LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 09-18-2018 12:26 AM
LXer: Linus Torvalds asks kernel devs to take a break so he can too LXer Syndicated Linux News 3 06-16-2015 01:59 AM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - General

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:24 PM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration