Sharp: Closing a door [LWN.net]

Sharp: Closing a door

Posted Oct 6, 2015 1:08 UTC (Tue) by ssmith32 (subscriber, #72404)
In reply to: Sharp: Closing a door by tzafrir
Parent article: Sharp: Closing a door

Actually, they don't have to consider it, and you have no proof it doesn't exist. I have at least two : Sarah and Con Kolivias. Again, we have data on one side, and nothing on the other.

to post comments

Sharp: Closing a door

Posted Oct 6, 2015 2:45 UTC (Tue) by louie (guest, #3285) [Link] (11 responses)

Add mjg59 to the list. (Also a good example for the person elsewhere in the thread who wanted an example of homophobia and/or sexism.)

Sharp: Closing a door

Posted Oct 6, 2015 3:55 UTC (Tue) by ssmith32 (subscriber, #72404) [Link] (2 responses)

Oh, and Alan Cox, after he bravely delved into the tty code to clean up that hairball, and just ended up on the receiving end of one of Linus' rants. That was a pretty significant loss. Not just a contributor, but a maintainer, with a significant amount of kernel info tied up in his head, just cause Linus couldn't state objections clearly and concisely without going on some random diatribe. We're up to four people, and the population size of significant kernel contributor's isn't that big. Reaching statistical significance..

Sharp: Closing a door

Posted Oct 6, 2015 5:45 UTC (Tue) by daniel (guest, #3181) [Link] (1 responses)

And Andre Hedrick, who suicided

Sharp: Closing a door

Posted Oct 6, 2015 5:57 UTC (Tue) by daniel (guest, #3181) [Link]

And Richard Gooch, who became one of the many contributers who go to Google never to contribute again.

Sharp: Closing a door

Posted Oct 6, 2015 12:32 UTC (Tue) by hitmark (guest, #34609) [Link] (5 responses)

Homophobia?

Sharp: Closing a door

Posted Oct 6, 2015 23:10 UTC (Tue) by dakas (guest, #88146) [Link] (4 responses)

I presume this means the "Guys, this is not a dick-sucking contest" remark, implying that dick-sucking might be something unsavory for guys. If he had said that to a woman, it's pretty obvious how she could consider this as a personal insult putting her into a sexual context based on her gender. It's not that much different with gays I guess because its use of a discriminating insult puts talker and listener on unequal footing. Like with "nigger", "but they talk like that to each other" does not really count since then it is done among equals.

At any rate, like "dick size contest", it identifies masculinity with power. Personally I consider this more gynophobic than homophobic.

Sharp: Closing a door

Posted Oct 7, 2015 6:41 UTC (Wed) by shmget (guest, #58347) [Link] (3 responses)

" Like with "nigger", "but they talk like that to each other" does not really count since then it is done among equals."

whoa!!! do you read yourself ? 'among equal' ? when exactly are 'they' not "among equals" ????

Sharp: Closing a door

Posted Oct 7, 2015 13:21 UTC (Wed) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (2 responses)

What he's saying, is that it is normal - AND NOT ABUSIVE - for a group of people to use those terms about themselves. So if a group of black people people talk about themselves, then they can use those words freely, but outsiders can't.

Personally, I think a lot of this is the ****** politically correct brigade, objecting on other peoples' behalf when those people couldn't actually give a damn, but too many people seem incapable of obeying the golden rule - "don't be gratuitously offensive". And its corollary - "don't take offense when none was intended". As I said - I couldn't discuss race on Groklaw because too many important people took offense at my only means of expression ... :-(

Cheers,
Wol

Sharp: Closing a door

Posted Oct 7, 2015 19:46 UTC (Wed) by shmget (guest, #58347) [Link]

"What he's saying, ..."
I know, but that is _not_ what was actually said. What was said is that some people are deemed to be among "equal" when they are in company of other people that share one or more superficial visible criteria, and therefore are _not_ among 'equal' with the rest of the population.

I live in the US, I'm well aware of the knee-jerk irrational reaction to some 'magic' words, and the laughable double standard that come with it. Very typical of the local culture to think that two wrongs make a right....

All that by peoples that advocate -- apparently for others, not them -- ultra-sensitivity to what other _might_ fell about what one write/say.

Sharp: Closing a door

Posted Oct 9, 2015 10:47 UTC (Fri) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]

So, on black people using that word between themselves as "equals", note that are some (influential) people in that community arguing that that is not the case and that they should not do so. The rapper/poet/social-commentator Akala makes a lot of interesting points on this in various interviews. E.g.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlBartyyyfk

Sharp: Closing a door

Posted Oct 18, 2015 13:14 UTC (Sun) by ksandstr (guest, #60862) [Link] (1 responses)

Whoa there pardner.

Matthew Garrett is the guy who libelled Ted Ts'o as a "rape apologist" on his blog (as Valerie Aurora[-1] had immediately before on hers), calling explicitly for social ostracism (shunning) on him, all because of a years-old[0] mailing-list post questioning a long-debunked statistic of radical feminists used to push convention codes-of-conduct. And if that's not enough, consider the magic number policing[1], hen-pecked advocacy of "deferring to [whomever] on social issues"[2], and his belligerence at various public codes-of-conduct being modified to not include the anti-white, anti-male presuppositions. He's hardly any model of civility at all.

For technological arguments, there was that time when Garrett's vision of Secure Boot in Linux required the removal of kexec and every other feature he thought could be used to subvert Secure Boot. Pressed for argument (on the LKML, no less), he doubled down on fear: Microsoft will surely deny Linux the ability to boot on Future Computers, unless the prophet is obeyed. Had he got what he wanted, it would've placed a security-related (wholly intransparent, yet overridingly important) power of veto over all kernel architecture in his hands. Suffice it to say, the attempt was rejected -- and the follow-up, which proposed to put key signing middleware into the kernel (for unexplained but vaguely related reasons), got the short fuse. A skilled developer is able to describe and justify such submissions, whereas any well-meaning fool can claim that It Must Be So Because Security while being entirely wrong.

And check it out: Microsoft hasn't spanked all of Linux with their Secure Boot hegemony. Who'd've thunk.

But, yes, let's think that he'd finally got so sick of the awful, awful LKML culture that he chucked his toys out of the pram & went to play with the cool kids instead. It's what he says himself, isn't it. Just like Sarah Sharp, ex-kernel developer since over a year ago, cares very little for the kernel besides making grandiose demands of the ethnic, cultural, and socioeconomic composition of the Linux maintainership, after her re-heated ragequit.

If there's a communication problem on the LKML, then it is something very different from what the Aurora/Garrett/Sharp triple would have you think. Those three, and their useful idiots, bring with them their very own suite of politicking, backstabbing, and behind-the-scenes abuse.

[-1] suggesting an unilaterally bitter rivarly in the filesystem space
[0] which must've taken some digging indeed
[1] no boobies in the kernel! think of the children!
[2] because of course everyone's a bleeding Rainman, desperately in need of chaperoning so as to not frighten the Women & Horses

Enough

Posted Oct 18, 2015 13:52 UTC (Sun) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link]

I suspect you have just single-handedly convinced a lot of people that folks like Matthew have a point. You need to stop doing that here.

Sharp: Closing a door

Posted Oct 7, 2015 20:26 UTC (Wed) by flussence (guest, #85566) [Link]

Thankfully CK only left the mailing lists -- not kernel hacking entirely.

BFS is a godsend for those of us who don't have a 16-core Xeon in our netbook or phone and want to actually use it. And it'll *never* be in mainline because the maintainers are so arrogant.

Same caveat applies for the (unrelated) BFQ: the maintainer's demand there was along the lines of "submit this as a broken up series of patches that mutates CFQ into BFQ one step at a time or we won't consider it at all". That's like asking for btrfs as a series of diffs against xfs.