Who controls glibc?

Posted May 8, 2018 7:23 UTC (Tue) by dgm (subscriber, #49227)
In reply to: Who controls glibc? by Sesse
Parent article: Who controls glibc?

Please, do not forget that we are talking about the *manual*. A manual has to be correct, sure, but it is no code. It shares aspects with other written means of expression, like journalism. The most important is perharps that there's no single "correct" way of writing a manual, but a wide sprectrum of personal styles.

With that in mind, I personally would be very upset if someone decided that an estilistic element on my writtings (as is a joke) should be mutilated. This is close to censorship, and very wrong in my oppinion.

Who controls glibc?

Posted May 8, 2018 8:27 UTC (Tue) by Sesse (subscriber, #53779) [Link] (3 responses)

How about if someone who doesn't actually contribute anything positive to the project anymore comes up from high above and demands that a (rather controversial!) joke has to stay, because they were important to the project 20 years ago?

Who controls glibc?

Posted May 8, 2018 12:25 UTC (Tue) by dgm (subscriber, #49227) [Link] (2 responses)

Sorry, but it does not sound convincing. Why would any of the factors you mention matter in a non-technical (basically artistical and political) decission? Do you claim that RMS cannot make political decissions for the GNU project (of which GLib is part)? Or that it is not his right for him to seek integrity of the prose he wrote, no matter how long ago?

Who controls glibc?

Posted May 8, 2018 12:51 UTC (Tue) by Sesse (subscriber, #53779) [Link] (1 responses)

Both. RMS should not make political decisions for glibc anymore, and it is not right for him to seek “integrity of the prose he wrote” (where said “prose” is a bad joke completely disconnected from the rest of the manual).

Who controls glibc?

Posted May 10, 2018 9:04 UTC (Thu) by zenaan (guest, #3778) [Link]

> Both. RMS should not make political decisions for glibc anymore, and it is not right for him to seek “integrity of the prose he wrote” (where said “prose” is a bad joke completely disconnected from the rest of the manual).

Yes, many seek to remove any concept of morals (or even ethics), to remove any hint of the founder's original intentions, to remove all politically incorrect prose and the ever-expanding menagerie of trigger words and phrases from all "upstanding and upright" technical material such as documentation.

Let us all submit to the passive aggressive, cry bully trigger-melting "unique snowflakes" by making the entire public world a safe space.

Or, let's not‼

Let's honour the intentions, ethics, vision and grace of the founders on whose shoulders we stand (such as Richard Stallman).

Let's admit that we are above submission to an endless march of passive aggressive cry bullies demanding the entire world become their safe space.

Let's admit that everything we say and do is in some way, on some level political, and at the very least honour the intentions of the founders of those projects we benefit so handsomely from.

Do. Not. Subsidize. Bad. Behaviour.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-04-28/are-social-just...

And do not subsidize the passive aggressive safe-space demanding cry bullies.

Create your world,