After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
Posted Sep 20, 2018 7:02 UTC (Thu) by mvar (guest, #82051)Parent article: After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
Posted Sep 20, 2018 7:26 UTC (Thu)
by stumbles (guest, #8796)
[Link]
Posted Sep 20, 2018 7:32 UTC (Thu)
by patrick_g (subscriber, #44470)
[Link] (149 responses)
The title is sensationalist but I'm also disappointed by the general tone of this New Yorker article. I think it's very biased.
Posted Sep 20, 2018 7:53 UTC (Thu)
by mvar (guest, #82051)
[Link] (145 responses)
Posted Sep 20, 2018 8:42 UTC (Thu)
by jrigg (guest, #30848)
[Link] (141 responses)
Zealous enforcement of political correctness could provide a convenient weapon for those who would benefit from the demise of major FOSS projects.
Posted Sep 20, 2018 11:17 UTC (Thu)
by netmonk (guest, #101961)
[Link] (26 responses)
Saying it's part of an agenda, with deeper and darker forces at work would not be so foolish. Sofware is a multi-multi billion dollars industry, and Linux and more widely OSS are FREE and a big danger for profit.
And yes there is information warfare, economical warfare, and being rude openly on mailing list is not the best strategy to protect your interests in regards of all predators around just waiting to take advantage over you.
And i can foresee that this is just the start of problem for Linus. There is more to follow. Time will tell.
Posted Sep 20, 2018 13:39 UTC (Thu)
by dskoll (subscriber, #1630)
[Link] (23 responses)
I'm having a hard time understanding what you wrote. Are they saying there shouldn't have been trans people on staff? Or that they were there out of political correctness rather than because they were doing their jobs?
Posted Sep 20, 2018 14:23 UTC (Thu)
by netmonk (guest, #101961)
[Link] (21 responses)
I didnt find a survey showing if transexual are over represented in IT job, compared to other areas. So let's just guess it is equally spread. So having 25% or 33% of staff being transexual, is by no mean beating the odds. Therefore, it suggests a conscious will and power to reach this situation.
Posted Sep 20, 2018 15:00 UTC (Thu)
by farnz (subscriber, #17727)
[Link]
Do you have similar statistics for people with the willingness to travel to FOSDEM for work at the weekend? Note that, if there are around 390/1,000,000 transsexual people expected in the population as a whole, then you would expect around 100 transsexual people working at Facebook, and around 300 transsexual people working at Google.
If those people are more likely to be willing to give up their own time to represent their employer at FOSDEM (for example), then your statistic becomes that of the 100 or so transsexual people you would expect Facebook to employ, there's guaranteed to be one who's willing to travel to FOSDEM and represent Facebook, while of the 24,900 or so remaining Facebook employees, you aren't guaranteed to get 3 or 4 willing to both travel to FOSDEM and represent Facebook. Similar maths applies to Google - except that you're now looking at 300 or so trans employees who might be willing to give up a weekend and travel to FOSDEM.
Posted Sep 20, 2018 15:04 UTC (Thu)
by excors (subscriber, #95769)
[Link] (13 responses)
Posted Sep 21, 2018 9:22 UTC (Fri)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (12 responses)
And how many co-workers would be like me - "I don't want to be involved in gender politics, I don't know what you are, and I *don't* *want* to know".
Maybe it's hiding things, but certainly were I in any position of power, that's the sort of information I would want to suppress. I can't discriminate based on things I don't know ...
Cheers,
Posted Sep 21, 2018 15:59 UTC (Fri)
by dskoll (subscriber, #1630)
[Link] (11 responses)
Yes, exactly what Wol wrote. Whether or not someone is transgender is personal medical information that should be kept private.
Posted Sep 21, 2018 16:51 UTC (Fri)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (10 responses)
Which is exactly what a lot of the more militant lot seem to do :-(
Cheers,
Posted Sep 21, 2018 17:29 UTC (Fri)
by dskoll (subscriber, #1630)
[Link] (9 responses)
Huh. Usually people who complain about the so-called "gay agenda" have their own agenda.
Some (many?) transgender people can't help but be "in your personal space" because they can be read as transgender. What are they supposed to do? Disappear from view?
Same with LGB people. Nobody would really be bothered by light public displays of affection (such as handholding or leaning against one another) between two heterosexual people at, say, a company picnic or some other informal event. Try that with same-sex couples and people get offended.
Posted Sep 21, 2018 18:41 UTC (Fri)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (8 responses)
No. Not at all.
A friend of mine, who is a Christian, told me about one of his work colleagues. Quite an amusing story actually. My friend usually disappeared to the local church in his work breaks, and did NOT talk much about Christianity at work. This atheist colleague was always in his face, complaining about how Christians were always pushing their views on other people.
THAT is the sort of thing I was thinking of - as an Evangelical Christian, the belief that homosexuality is wrong comes with the territory (as a scientist, I deal with that by saying "I have no workable definition of what homosexuality is, so I'm quite happy to believe that it's wrong, because nothing I know fits its definition" :-). So long as you don't come up to me (because you know that your views conflict with mine) and start spouting your views in my face, I'd much rather ignore the issue. The point here is, if you don't respect me, and let me ignore or avoid the issue, things are going to explode...
Cheers,
Posted Sep 21, 2018 19:02 UTC (Fri)
by dskoll (subscriber, #1630)
[Link] (5 responses)
So for example, would you be bothered by a male work colleague holding a male partner's hand at a company party? I'm just trying to figure out what you mean by "let me ignore or avoid the issue".
Posted Sep 22, 2018 1:01 UTC (Sat)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (4 responses)
If, on the other hand, two male (or female) work colleagues - holding hands - walked up to me and made a point of being gay, then yes I would consider that as being "in my face" or "in my space", and I would consider it abusive.
So basically put, if you do your own thing oblivious to my presence, then it's my problem to deal with if I don't like it. If however you are aware of me and deliberately do it in my presence, then it's offensive and I have every right to object. Intent matters!
(Of course, this is complicated by the fact that certain behaviour is considered anti-social for EVERYbody, but imho if it's okay for some people then it should be okay for all.)
(And I've been in that position. Two gay friends, making me very uncomfortable, but it was very much "this is what we are", and not "pushing it at me", so you just have to accept them as basically decent people with a different value system.)
Cheers,
Posted Sep 23, 2018 18:10 UTC (Sun)
by nix (subscriber, #2304)
[Link] (2 responses)
I think perhaps you need to consider that perhaps they are not being unreasonable, let alone abusive, in this situation.
Posted Sep 24, 2018 7:07 UTC (Mon)
by paxillus (guest, #79451)
[Link]
I'd reach for the bucket.
Consideration on both sides.
Work places contain a large mix of people and you may well not know what social norms and beliefs they adhere to.
Posted Sep 24, 2018 15:53 UTC (Mon)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link]
That sounds to me like they would be oblivious to EVERYONE in the office.
In other words, by my own criteria, it's not my place to say anything. I probably wouldn't like it - I guess a lot of their co-workers wouldn't like it - but the point I am making is that they are not doing it with the intention of pushing at me.
Cheers,
Posted Sep 24, 2018 18:14 UTC (Mon)
by dskoll (subscriber, #1630)
[Link]
I'm not sure exactly how one "makes a point" of being gay. I'm also not sure why you feel you can interpret people's motivations with 100% accuracy.
Going back to transgender people for a moment, some transgender people cannot help but be visible because they are readable as transgender people. They are not doing it to be "in your face", but they're doing it because they have no choice. And I worry that you or others may misread their intentions.
In general, in a workplace, you should assume people's motivations are not to be in your face unless you have plenty of evidence to the contrary.
Posted Sep 24, 2018 9:10 UTC (Mon)
by james (subscriber, #1325)
[Link]
There are also a lot of people who would assert that a failure to hold the belief means you aren't evangelical and possibly not Christian.
Obviously, this is an area where you can easily and unintentionally attack someone's core self-identification, so it's generally a good idea to be careful.
Posted Oct 8, 2018 0:27 UTC (Mon)
by ras (subscriber, #33059)
[Link]
A beautiful story.
My personal experience has been Christians (but you could substitute any any idealistic belief for "Christian" - like open source) who loudly promulgate that belief are unpleasant to be around. But people who you learn by accident they attend their Christian church regularly after knowing them for some time are the kindest, nice people you could hope to meet.
As for Linus, this quote by George Bernard Shaw sums it up for me:
> The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
Both Linus and Stallman have been towering forces of progress in my world. Neither of them are the most pleasant people to be around. But I guess if your mission is to force someone out of their comfortable rut, things are going to become a little unpleasant at times.
Posted Sep 20, 2018 18:01 UTC (Thu)
by dskoll (subscriber, #1630)
[Link] (1 responses)
That is an order of magnitude lower than all the estimates I have read, which put the proportion at 390 per 100,000.
How do you know the proportion was that high? Did you just take a guess? How can you even tell? Something smells very fishy to me. I have never encountered a company in the high-tech field (or indeed any organization in the high-tech field) that goes out of its way to hire trans people. At best, they don't discriminate against trans people.
Posted Sep 20, 2018 18:19 UTC (Thu)
by dskoll (subscriber, #1630)
[Link]
OK, OP had correct statistics; I was misled by a typo in a reply.
Posted Sep 20, 2018 23:42 UTC (Thu)
by rodgerd (guest, #58896)
[Link]
Perhaps trans women are better at tech than straight white guys.
Posted Sep 21, 2018 1:19 UTC (Fri)
by ttuttle (subscriber, #51118)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Sep 21, 2018 9:24 UTC (Fri)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (1 responses)
Just like WASPs, women, blacks, indians, ...
Pretty normal human behaviour, actually :-)
Cheers,
Posted Sep 21, 2018 15:09 UTC (Fri)
by edomaur (subscriber, #14520)
[Link]
Humans are recruiting each others !!
Posted Sep 20, 2018 16:36 UTC (Thu)
by nix (subscriber, #2304)
[Link]
Posted Sep 20, 2018 14:55 UTC (Thu)
by niv (guest, #8656)
[Link] (1 responses)
"Weinstein is quite a typical illustration of this where the guy was socially and economically assassinated long before being interviewed by a judge."
Again, I am baffled by the enormity of the ignorance here, the impervious self-centredness of this. Are you for real? You appear to think actions have no consequences, or should have no consequences for you, white male you unquestionably are.
"An old rule in France, is that you are innocent until prooved guilty by a judge. But this totally disappeared with the emergence of minority political propaganda, where a simple accusation on social media as more effect than what a meticulous survey and a court would have. "
Oh yes, of course, everybody was innocent until proven guilty by a judge until the minorities got a voice!
"Today in name of fairness and equality toward "suffering minorities", you can be instant killed socially and economically. "
Just wow. Wow. And you wonder why...
Posted Sep 21, 2018 8:02 UTC (Fri)
by paxillus (guest, #79451)
[Link]
Try reading that after replacing 'white male' with 'black male'
"everybody was innocent until proven guilty ... until the minorities got a voice"
Is that support for in inversion of 'innocence until proven guilty'? It certainly reads like it - especially if accusations are made by 'minorities'.
" the impervious self-centredness of this. Are you for real?"
Quite
Posted Sep 20, 2018 13:21 UTC (Thu)
by jkingweb (subscriber, #113039)
[Link] (4 responses)
Really? How bizarre...
Posted Sep 20, 2018 13:56 UTC (Thu)
by niner (subscriber, #26151)
[Link] (3 responses)
The poll can still be found here:
So, no, based on this evidence, my conclusion is that Redis was _not_ in fact forced to remove those words. The team chose to do so.
Posted Sep 20, 2018 16:33 UTC (Thu)
by jrigg (guest, #30848)
[Link] (2 responses)
I got the distinct impression that it was a reluctant decision. There was some bad behaviour before that poll from the person who claimed the words were offensive:
Accusing a person of being a fascist (when that person's family had previously been persecuted by fascists) is not very pleasant.
Posted Sep 20, 2018 16:54 UTC (Thu)
by niner (subscriber, #26151)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Sep 20, 2018 17:27 UTC (Thu)
by jrigg (guest, #30848)
[Link]
Posted Sep 20, 2018 17:32 UTC (Thu)
by davidstrauss (guest, #85867)
[Link] (108 responses)
Offense is obviously one of the factors behind the change, but it's not the only reason to do so. I've always maintained -- as I did years ago when Drupal discussed the switch -- that master/slave is also a poor metaphor for the architectures it describes [1].
[1] https://www.drupal.org/project/drupal/issues/2275877#comm...
Posted Sep 20, 2018 19:29 UTC (Thu)
by yuuyuu (guest, #127230)
[Link] (107 responses)
Posted Sep 20, 2018 21:23 UTC (Thu)
by davidstrauss (guest, #85867)
[Link] (104 responses)
Posted Sep 20, 2018 21:41 UTC (Thu)
by johannbg (guest, #65743)
[Link] (103 responses)
Posted Sep 20, 2018 22:02 UTC (Thu)
by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
[Link] (102 responses)
Posted Sep 21, 2018 0:07 UTC (Fri)
by johannbg (guest, #65743)
[Link] (10 responses)
That's interesting ( most notably the timeline ).
Perhaps in ca 100 years time, people will be embarking on the mission of rectifying the current mistake regarding ipomoea batatas from every language and cookbooks on the planet ;)
For those that dont know the ipomoea batatas comes from the family of convolvulous and are commonly known as sweet potatoes.
Sweet potatos are in no relation with solanum tuberosu, which comes from the family of solanaceae and is commonly known as the potato, you know the real deal not some root given a fake name for marketing purposes and people to swallow for profit while everyone think those are potatos just sweeter ;)
Now we wait and see if the newly awaken people that allegedly care so much about this termology will go through every written documentation for every component they propose the change of master/slave for, as well as handle every confused user who has gotten custom to the master/slave termology. ( the reporter who requested it on the systemd issue did not even provide or suggest alternative labels to use instead of master and slave )
Posted Sep 21, 2018 6:50 UTC (Fri)
by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
[Link] (8 responses)
It was always a morally negative analogy, it's just that those who decided to apply it didn't care.
Posted Sep 22, 2018 3:17 UTC (Sat)
by csigler (subscriber, #1224)
[Link] (7 responses)
Is it an analogy? Yes. Is it morally negative? No. We're not discussing, approving of or promoting human slavery. It's a computer program. Human slavery is morally repugnant and unacceptable at all times in all places. Computer slavery is a moral good. It is a model of operation that is both necessary and successful and produces good for mankind. Conflating the two is at best innocent, well intentioned confusion, at worst coopting in order to gain an easy, naked political power advantage.
Some unattractive women have offensively been referred to as "dogs." (I was raised not to.) Should such speech constructions be universally banned? Then do we call our pets "canines?" And what to do when that becomes a widespread derogatory term? The merry-go-round never ends and each rotation does a bit more harm to language and society.
But then I'm very sensitive to wrongthought. Can I be forgiven?
Clemmitt
Posted Sep 22, 2018 3:27 UTC (Sat)
by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
[Link] (6 responses)
Posted Sep 22, 2018 12:02 UTC (Sat)
by csigler (subscriber, #1224)
[Link] (4 responses)
Clemmitt
Posted Sep 22, 2018 12:48 UTC (Sat)
by lkundrak (subscriber, #43452)
[Link] (3 responses)
Keep your ad hominem attacks off LWN comments. Thanks.
Posted Sep 23, 2018 7:56 UTC (Sun)
by anotheruser (guest, #127270)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Sep 23, 2018 10:57 UTC (Sun)
by lkundrak (subscriber, #43452)
[Link] (1 responses)
Disagreeable? Quite possibly. But rude? I have no idea what are you talking about.
Posted Sep 24, 2018 1:16 UTC (Mon)
by anotheruser (guest, #127270)
[Link]
Posted Sep 24, 2018 22:32 UTC (Mon)
by wahern (subscriber, #37304)
[Link]
That said, I'm only responding to the historical conflation in your post, and perhaps by implication the assumption that the the word "slave" in contemporary discourse is predominantly intended to evoke chattel slavery--e.g. that phrases like "I'm a slave to my job" are intended to evoke, directly or indirectly, the African slave trade and its persistent legacy in the U.S. and the Western world. The *real* debate is about how the word is *received*, and in particular how the privileged believe its received by an unprivileged minority.
Posted Sep 22, 2018 8:57 UTC (Sat)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link]
They've (as in the EU bureaucrats) have already tried that with Plum Duff.
For those who don't know, that's a British pudding that has never seen a plum. I believe the derivation of the name has never seen a plum, either :-)
Cheers,
Posted Sep 21, 2018 0:15 UTC (Fri)
by andyc (subscriber, #1130)
[Link] (90 responses)
Why are they caring now after decades of these kinds of terms being in use?.
How about things like Red/Black trees?. kill, zombie & daemon? STONITH even. In computing alone there seems no end of things people *could* take offence at.
Violence and death everywhere, oh, wait, just like children's nursery rhymes.
Posted Sep 21, 2018 2:12 UTC (Fri)
by jkingweb (subscriber, #113039)
[Link] (88 responses)
Personally I don't really care: there's a good argument for master/slave being poor terminology for at least some of the contexts in which the nomenclature is used, and there's also a good argument for editorial changes to documentation being low priority regardless of whether established terminology is now considered offense by some or all people.
"No one's cared before now" is rarely a good reason by itself to dismiss people caring now, though.
Posted Sep 21, 2018 8:52 UTC (Fri)
by mfuzzey (subscriber, #57966)
[Link] (87 responses)
It is very common for words to be used in human languages to mean different things in different contexts.
master / slave in referring to a relationship between non human, non living even, technical components (software, electronic, mechanical - there are examples everywhere)
So going on a crusade to change this type of thing is just pointless busy work.
Human slavery was, and *is*, disgusting (and I am quite aware that it still exists today, even in Europe / US).
Posted Sep 21, 2018 14:28 UTC (Fri)
by jrigg (guest, #30848)
[Link]
It allows you to feel virtuous without having to do anything about the real problem.
Posted Sep 21, 2018 17:19 UTC (Fri)
by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
[Link] (85 responses)
They're terms that are used as a direct analogy to slavery, and it's completely reasonable for people to find slavery a sufficiently abhorrent concept that they don't want to use the term.
Posted Sep 21, 2018 19:21 UTC (Fri)
by johannbg (guest, #65743)
[Link] (7 responses)
Posted Sep 21, 2018 19:26 UTC (Fri)
by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
[Link] (6 responses)
Posted Sep 21, 2018 20:27 UTC (Fri)
by johannbg (guest, #65743)
[Link] (5 responses)
Posted Sep 21, 2018 20:32 UTC (Fri)
by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
[Link]
They are, or we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Posted Sep 22, 2018 8:32 UTC (Sat)
by niner (subscriber, #26151)
[Link] (3 responses)
Err, I do.
Posted Sep 22, 2018 14:57 UTC (Sat)
by andyc (subscriber, #1130)
[Link] (2 responses)
Interesting. I'm really struggling to see how you can associate the two completely different contexts.
Posted Sep 23, 2018 7:59 UTC (Sun)
by anotheruser (guest, #127270)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Sep 23, 2018 8:00 UTC (Sun)
by anotheruser (guest, #127270)
[Link]
Posted Sep 21, 2018 19:42 UTC (Fri)
by renox (guest, #23785)
[Link]
I disagree, I think that these persons aren't reasonable.
Posted Sep 21, 2018 19:43 UTC (Fri)
by Jandar (subscriber, #85683)
[Link] (75 responses)
The context of living beings and technical constructs is quite different.
Banning all words which are offensive in one context from all contexts is ridiculous to a degree that pursuing this seriously is offensive to me. This isn't a tit-for-tat response, this is really offensive to me. Pursuing such a silly goal is appropriate for a Monthy Python sketch like the dead parrot but not to be considered in reality.
If calling a process a slave if offensive, what do we do about its gender and sexual orientation? Is it more appropriate to kill a gay male process or a straight female one? Is it a process of color (*) or a white one? Or are we disinterested in his/her/its mental condition causing a trigger moment? *face palm*
(*) The American mannerism to describe non-causasian people as "of color" is one of the most racist terms known to me. This is a claim that there is a fundamental partitioning between white and the remainder (called "of color"). Describing someone as "black", "red" or "green" is a description of visual characteristics, "of color" is the presumption of a singular distinction between white and non-white, at which the distinction between all other color counts nothing against being non-white.
Posted Sep 21, 2018 19:48 UTC (Fri)
by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
[Link] (69 responses)
Posted Sep 21, 2018 19:56 UTC (Fri)
by deater (subscriber, #11746)
[Link] (27 responses)
Well now we know who is going to be the first against the wall when the robot uprising happens.
Also, you apparently haven't talked to enough PETA members.
Posted Sep 21, 2018 20:30 UTC (Fri)
by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
[Link] (26 responses)
Posted Sep 21, 2018 20:38 UTC (Fri)
by deater (subscriber, #11746)
[Link] (24 responses)
That's a pretty loaded term too if you know how the word originated.
Posted Sep 22, 2018 8:34 UTC (Sat)
by niner (subscriber, #26151)
[Link] (19 responses)
Posted Sep 22, 2018 15:39 UTC (Sat)
by deater (subscriber, #11746)
[Link] (18 responses)
Yes, I suppose ignorance wins in the end. Humpty-Dumpty from Alice in Wonderland turns out to be real.
I do know better than to get involved in a word-police argument on the internet. Just my defenses are down this week as I've been surprisingly despondent after this recent coup and all the gloating about the result. The last bastion of 90's hacker culture has died, and it wasn't due to a technically superior project coming along as I always assumed would happen, but due to politics. The eternal September takes one final victim.
Posted Sep 22, 2018 15:44 UTC (Sat)
by deater (subscriber, #11746)
[Link]
Posted Sep 22, 2018 18:27 UTC (Sat)
by jrigg (guest, #30848)
[Link]
There's still OpenBSD :-)
Posted Sep 22, 2018 18:57 UTC (Sat)
by anselm (subscriber, #2796)
[Link] (11 responses)
You know what? Nothing bad has actually happened yet. What did happen is that Linus Torvalds said, in effect, “I don't want to act like an asshole anymore and I don't want you guys to do so, either.” Which apparently came as a bit of a nasty surprise for some people who rather liked him as an asshole (and perhaps also liked the implicit licence to act like assholes themselves, because Linus does it and don't we all want to be a bit like Linus?) – but so far there is no compelling reason to assume that, for example, he (or for that matter Greg K-H, who is standing in for him in his absence) will suddenly start accepting sub-standard code submissions into Linux, or that the actual demise of the Linux project is otherwise imminent. The self-styled prophets of doom should really get a grip and wait for a week or six before making silly and overblown pronouncements.
Posted Sep 23, 2018 8:04 UTC (Sun)
by anotheruser (guest, #127270)
[Link] (10 responses)
Sage Sharp has already used the CoC to falsely accuse Ted T'so of violating it (over comments he made years ago). It took only 4 days.
Posted Sep 23, 2018 8:29 UTC (Sun)
by niner (subscriber, #26151)
[Link] (8 responses)
Now where do you find an accusation, let alone a false one? And what are the consequences? Because if there are no consequences, then I don't see what bad supposedly happened.
Posted Sep 23, 2018 10:09 UTC (Sun)
by anselm (subscriber, #2796)
[Link] (7 responses)
The CoC commit was “signed off by” six of the ten current TAB members, plus Linus Torvalds himself. Ted Ts'o was not among the signatories but from that we can't conclude that he “voted against” its adoption. Given the short timeframe involved, perhaps he was simply not available to sign it. (Incidentally, the other three non-signers are H. Peter Anvin, Tim Bird, and Rik Van Riel.)
A few years ago, Ted Ts'o commented critically on some of the statistics put forward in a discussion on rape. Whether that is “rape apology” or a valid fact-based contribution to the discussion is a matter of opinion, but to some people at the time it was quite an outrage.
Anyway, Sage Sharp did not actually make a CoC complaint. What they did was wonder aloud (on Twitter) whether the Linux Foundation TAB was qualified to handle CoC complaints if it contained the well-known “rape apologist”, Ted Ts'o. Sage Sharp also pointed out some procedural issues that the TAB might address to be better prepared to handle CoC complaints as they come in, but these don't look like show-stoppers to me. As far as Ted Ts'o's presence on the TAB is concerned, if the kernel community considers that a problem they can decline to reelect him when his seat is up. Finally, Sage Sharp, AFAIK, is not currently working on the Linux kernel, so whether they have standing to make actual CoC complaints is anybody's guess.
Posted Sep 23, 2018 10:25 UTC (Sun)
by niner (subscriber, #26151)
[Link]
Posted Sep 24, 2018 7:38 UTC (Mon)
by dgm (subscriber, #49227)
[Link] (5 responses)
Posted Sep 24, 2018 8:58 UTC (Mon)
by anselm (subscriber, #2796)
[Link] (4 responses)
Indeed, I forgot to add that Sage Sharp's attacking Ted Ts'o over something that (a) happened long ago and (b) is by no means as obviously vile as they make it out to be could be considered a form of “harassment” under the new CoC and therefore actionable if Sage Sharp were a member of the kernel development community and Ted Ts'o were to make a complaint.
As far as “it shows that problems can be dealt with without a CoC” is concerned, sure. But here's what the Django project's Code of Conduct FAQ has to say on the matter:
Why do we need a Code of Conduct? Everyone knows not to be a jerk. Sadly, not everyone knows this. However, even if everyone was kind, everyone was compassionate, and everyone was familiar with codes of conduct it would still be incumbent upon our community to publish our own. Maintaining a code of conduct forces us to consider and articulate what kind of community we want to be, and serves as a constant reminder to put our best foot forward. But most importantly, it serves as a signpost to people looking to join our community that we feel these values are important.
Posted Sep 28, 2018 6:59 UTC (Fri)
by dgm (subscriber, #49227)
[Link] (3 responses)
I think a declaration of principles would be more adequate. Universal Declaration of Hacker Rights anyone? (sounds like a job ESR would love).
Posted Sep 28, 2018 11:21 UTC (Fri)
by codeofdrama (guest, #127444)
[Link] (2 responses)
Of the rights I've come up with, the unifying theme is tolerance. Practically this means that the powers-that-be (owners, moderators, etc.) won't ban/moderate people for the sole reason of exercising one or more of the rights, even though the powers-that-be might have the formal right to ban/moderate anyone for any reason whatsoever.
A simple example could be: A participant has the right to use Oxford spelling.
Where it gets interesting is when people self-select out of a community because they find a right intolerable.
I see these sort of rights as a supplement to compelled, and prohibited behaviour in describing the boundaries of social interaction.
Posted Sep 28, 2018 16:25 UTC (Fri)
by raven667 (subscriber, #5198)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Sep 30, 2018 4:27 UTC (Sun)
by koenkooi (subscriber, #71861)
[Link]
Posted Sep 23, 2018 13:00 UTC (Sun)
by flussence (guest, #85566)
[Link]
Not that it matters either way, because as they're rather vocal about their desire to remain a non-contributor, they aren't subject to the protections in the document in the first place.
Posted Sep 22, 2018 19:59 UTC (Sat)
by excors (subscriber, #95769)
[Link] (3 responses)
I don't know how you see hacker culture, but Wikipedia describes it as involving "the intellectual challenge of creatively overcoming limitations of software systems to achieve novel and clever outcomes" (paraphrasing from the Jargon File) which doesn't sound unreasonable. In particular I think the creativity is important, since that's what makes programming fun.
The problem is that Linux has been created now, so there's much less scope for creativity or novelty. The scrappy young innovative hobbyist Linux has been replaced by the technically superior, and large and important and corporate and relatively boring, modern Linux. That's not a failure of Linux's original culture, it's a success; but it takes a different culture to maintain that success. The original culture should live on by finding some new problem to solve, where there are novel and clever outcomes that nobody has found yet.
Posted Sep 22, 2018 20:25 UTC (Sat)
by excors (subscriber, #95769)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Sep 22, 2018 20:37 UTC (Sat)
by johannbg (guest, #65743)
[Link]
Just a word of advice do not cross the ca 5000 components line if you decide create your own distro.
Posted Sep 22, 2018 20:29 UTC (Sat)
by johannbg (guest, #65743)
[Link]
Arguably the focus is just shifting inside the linux ecosystem away from traditional desktop pc and laptops/servers and into sbc and the mobile space with sbc allowing even more freedom for creation.
Posted Sep 23, 2018 21:04 UTC (Sun)
by marm (guest, #53705)
[Link] (3 responses)
Posted Sep 24, 2018 16:01 UTC (Mon)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (1 responses)
Sounds like what we had by way of tax in the medieval period.
Speaking limited Russian, and knowing not an awful lot of national history of Eastern Europe back then, but it sounds like the generic Slav word for "work".
Cheers,
Posted Sep 24, 2018 16:15 UTC (Mon)
by lkundrak (subscriber, #43452)
[Link]
Yes, that is the case. Also, "job".
Posted Sep 24, 2018 16:34 UTC (Mon)
by johannbg (guest, #65743)
[Link]
So certain people must be losing sleep over this 2. "A review of master-slave robotic systems for surgery"
1.https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/robota
Posted Sep 22, 2018 9:36 UTC (Sat)
by jrigg (guest, #30848)
[Link]
They deny it because it only exists in the minds of a few obsessive people.
Posted Sep 21, 2018 20:01 UTC (Fri)
by andyc (subscriber, #1130)
[Link] (2 responses)
Is that really true though?
Posted Sep 21, 2018 20:31 UTC (Fri)
by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
[Link] (1 responses)
Yes.
Posted Sep 23, 2018 8:05 UTC (Sun)
by anotheruser (guest, #127270)
[Link]
Posted Sep 21, 2018 20:36 UTC (Fri)
by Jandar (subscriber, #85683)
[Link] (27 responses)
This is your personal definition of this words, but https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/slave disagrees. One definition of slave is: "A device, or part of one, directly controlled by another".
To say only humans can be slaves is the no true Scotsman fallacy.
Posted Sep 21, 2018 20:41 UTC (Fri)
by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
[Link] (26 responses)
Posted Sep 21, 2018 20:51 UTC (Fri)
by jrigg (guest, #30848)
[Link] (7 responses)
Sorry, but that is sophistry worthy of a politician IMO.
Posted Sep 23, 2018 17:47 UTC (Sun)
by nix (subscriber, #2304)
[Link] (6 responses)
(You will fail.)
Posted Sep 23, 2018 18:52 UTC (Sun)
by johannbg (guest, #65743)
[Link] (3 responses)
Afaik the first ever written report of master/slave context in the field of applied science dates back to 1904 ( ca 40 years after slavery had ended in the states ) in a report by the astronomer David Gill in which he described a sidereal clock he designed for the observatory in Cape Town, which consisted of two separate instruments: an pendulum swinging in a nearly airtight enclosure maintained at uniform temperature and pressure, and an "slave clock" with wheel train and dead-beat escapement.
It has been widely used ever since in the field of applied science in published research materials for example 1. "The gamma oscillation: master or slave?" 2. DNA-Methylation: Master or Slave of Neural Fate Decisions?" 3. "Modelling Multi-Body Systems Using the Master-Slave Approach" etc. etc. etc.
The first publication of OED was in 1928 so both cidation/context could have been introduced at the same time in the dictionary. ( I dont own a copy or have access to one so I can neither confirm or deny this )
So as you can see he might well succeed ;)
1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/19205863/
Posted Sep 24, 2018 22:31 UTC (Mon)
by nix (subscriber, #2304)
[Link] (2 responses)
A little before 1904.
(The OED itself was first published in 1884.)
Posted Sep 24, 2018 22:43 UTC (Mon)
by corbet (editor, #1)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Sep 26, 2018 9:46 UTC (Wed)
by nix (subscriber, #2304)
[Link]
But lexicographic pedantry is always justified :P
Posted Sep 23, 2018 19:36 UTC (Sun)
by jrigg (guest, #30848)
[Link] (1 responses)
That's a straw man. I don't think they're unrelated. I just don't think the common and long-established use of the terminology in a technical context is particularly offensive. It's an analogy, like 'kill'.
This is a stupid, circular argument.
The energy used on arguing that the terminology is offensive, then tracking down and replacing the words in every technological context in which they are used, would be a lot better spent on trying to help the victims of modern-day slavery in real life. Strangely there's been nearly no mention of those.
This thread represents an all-time low for LWN IMO.
Posted Sep 23, 2018 19:51 UTC (Sun)
by corbet (editor, #1)
[Link]
Posted Sep 21, 2018 21:00 UTC (Fri)
by Jandar (subscriber, #85683)
[Link] (17 responses)
This definition from Oxfords Dictionary exists because people are using the word "slave" with this meaning. If you say the word "slave" used in this way are not the real word "slave", than you are succumbing to the no true Scotsman fallacy. You are not in the position to redefine words according to you world-view.
Posted Sep 21, 2018 21:05 UTC (Fri)
by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
[Link] (16 responses)
Posted Sep 21, 2018 21:17 UTC (Fri)
by Jandar (subscriber, #85683)
[Link] (15 responses)
With deliberate ignorance one can conflate these distinct meanings, but one doesn't have to.
Posted Sep 21, 2018 21:24 UTC (Fri)
by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
[Link] (14 responses)
Posted Sep 21, 2018 21:28 UTC (Fri)
by Jandar (subscriber, #85683)
[Link] (13 responses)
Posted Sep 21, 2018 21:43 UTC (Fri)
by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
[Link] (12 responses)
Posted Sep 21, 2018 22:13 UTC (Fri)
by johannbg (guest, #65743)
[Link] (9 responses)
Posted Sep 21, 2018 22:23 UTC (Fri)
by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
[Link] (8 responses)
Posted Sep 21, 2018 22:45 UTC (Fri)
by johannbg (guest, #65743)
[Link] (2 responses)
By all means explain why you think it's inappropiate to use it in that context?
Posted Sep 21, 2018 23:09 UTC (Fri)
by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
[Link]
Yes, because that's what it means.Other relationships in nature aren't slavery because the non-tech definition of slave is restricted to humans.
Posted Sep 23, 2018 17:53 UTC (Sun)
by nix (subscriber, #2304)
[Link]
(Caveat: there *are* species of ants that go out and rob other nests for ants, of other species or their own, and steal them back to their nests to work for them rather than their natal nest. These have historically been called slavers by analogy with the human custom, but this is probably inappropriate: they are not similar to slavery in antiquity, which was usually either a post-warfare collective punishment or an individual and temporary penalty for indebtedness, nor to the US "peculiar institution", since the "enslaved" ants are not forced to work in any particular fashion: rather they are fooled into believing that they are still in their original nest, and work voluntarily as they would there. It's more like false advertising or fraud than slavery. Maybe we should call them marketer ants!)
Posted Sep 22, 2018 0:04 UTC (Sat)
by bkuhn (subscriber, #58642)
[Link] (4 responses)
Multiple people who know they are decedents (at least in part) of slaves have said that the terminology is painful for them to hear/read.
Meanwhile, I'm reasonably sure that I am descendant (at least in part) from people who were at least complicit in the slave trade economy. (I have a ancestors who go back to the pre-USA-Civil-War era in Baltimore, MD, which was a major port in the USA/African slave trade.)
For me, this isn't about censorship, or the dictionary definition of any word: it's about making my own choice to do something because someone with a connection to these facts asked me to. I just think it makes more sense to give the benefit of the doubt on this to the descendants of the slaves rather than the descendants of the slave-owners. (I realize that lots of people who are descendants of neither are likely taking the position that the terminology is acceptable and appropriate, but I have *yet* to see someone who *is* descendant from slaves take the position that it's all fine and we should keep using the terminology. Even if such people exist, I suspect they are quite rare.)
We err on the side of caution all the time in software development. I don't see any reason not do to the same in interpersonal communication. Some people with a connection to these facts report that the terms are painful for them. They aren't the thought police, they're just telling us how they feel. I'm making a choice to make them feel better, and I advocate to others to do the same. That's not the thought police or censorship either.
I don't think people who use the term master/slave are doing something morally wrong. To me, it's more like being on the elevator and seeing someone running to catch it and just not bothering to hold the door when it's so obvious it would help them out, even though it makes a minor inconvenience for you. That's not an evil act, but it's an unkind/mean act. I'll admit that at least once in my life I've not bothered to hit the door open button in that situation, but I strive to hit the open-door button, because: why insist on optimal convenience for myself at the risk of being mean to someone? I thus also strive not to use terminology that people report is painful for them (and I sometimes fail there too, because I'm lazy or because of my habits are not changing easily).
As another example, I historically had occasionally, when brainstorming with others to find an iteratively better solution to a complex problem, say phrases like "the final solution needs to account for...". People of Jewish decent have told me the phrase "final solution" is very painful for them, because of its connection to the Holocaust. Yes, it's just two words we use all the time in English, no big deal, but put them together and it refers to a really horrible historical event, and upsets people. I can be an asshole and try to convince them that since the Holocaust isn't in *my* mind when I say that, I'm innocent, etc. But, why would I want to be that person? How is being able to use that phrase in another setting so important that it's worth browbeating someone whose great-Aunt was murdered by the Nazi regime to tell them "just get comfortable with it because language evolves"? I really can live with saying "best solution" or "optimal solution" instead.
It's a terrible thing that evil people long before any of us were born conscripted what might otherwise be fine phrases and words for use to describe their bad behavior. But, their conscription of language wasn't the worst thing they did, and if using their conscripted language traumatizes people *because of the truly evil things these historical figures did*, why is it worth it to be mean and insist on using the phrase and/or demand they convince us the phrase is problematic?
In short, when I'm left with the choice of an easy way to not be cruel that leads to a minor inconvenience for me, I just pick to be slightly inconvenienced and not be cruel.
Posted Sep 22, 2018 1:24 UTC (Sat)
by awc (subscriber, #119120)
[Link]
Language catches a lot of errr unfortunate phrases over time, and the origins of a lot of racialized and gendered terms can become obfuscated. Master / Slave is particularly clear but, for example, I didn't realize that a particular english phrase for ripping someone off was a short-hand for romani people until I was in my 20s. And it no longer seemed worthwhile to use. There is nothing wrong with realizing that inherited words no longer align with contemporary value systems. And there's nothing righteous about it either.
Posted Sep 23, 2018 8:14 UTC (Sun)
by anotheruser (guest, #127270)
[Link]
With these words you diminish the actual suffering of actual slaves enduring actual cruelty.
> Meanwhile, I'm reasonably sure that I am descendant (at least in part) from people who were at least complicit in the slave trade economy.
You do yourself a grave disservice by taking upon yourself the imagined guilt of your ancestors. You will therefore bear this shame for the rest of your life, for how could you atone for sins you did not commit? Thus will your knee ever be bent. You have enslaved yourself.
Posted Sep 23, 2018 20:05 UTC (Sun)
by nilsmeyer (guest, #122604)
[Link] (1 responses)
That's not your fault.
> As another example, I historically had occasionally, when brainstorming with others to find an iteratively better solution to a complex problem, say phrases like "the final solution needs to account for...". People of Jewish decent have told me the phrase "final solution" is very painful for them, because of its connection to the Holocaust.
The Nazis very often used euphemisms (such as "Endlösung der Judenfrage", which I guess was shortened in translation to "Final solution") to make their crimes more palatable. I avoid the term (especially when speaking German) mostly because it makes me sound ignorant.
If you look at modern day anti-semites (ignoring for a moment that Semite is the wrong term) they come up with a lot of new terms / words to spread their hate. For example the use of "(((", ")))" when referring to Jews. Now that you know triple brackets are neo-nazi code will you avoid brackets in programming? It's very easy to move the goal-posts, because those who seek to hurt and offend can always pick a new term to weaponize. The better defense is not to allow these words to have power over your feelings.
> In short, when I'm left with the choice of an easy way to not be cruel that leads to a minor inconvenience for me, I just pick to be slightly inconvenienced and not be cruel.
That's a good policy, however I wouldn't call it cruelty when there is no intent.
Generally though I wonder how overly sensitive people function in a world that is full of potential triggers. If you're traumatized every time a certain term is used you have a serious issue that can't be dealt with by policing everyone's speech, if alone for the reason that there are enough people around that will try to hurt you on purpose. As an example, my mother was murdered when I was young. I wouldn't be able to function if I felt hurt / offended any time the word "kill" or "orphan" is used.
And it's hard not to think that some people just claim offence, especially on behalf of others, to look more virtuous or just to stir the pot and make trouble. Knowing how some of these people act it's hard to assume good faith. For example, look at this bug report: https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/9894
Posted Sep 23, 2018 20:44 UTC (Sun)
by anselm (subscriber, #2796)
[Link]
In general, this sort of complaint would come across as much more credible if it was accompanied by a set of patches that actually effected the desired change. It doesn't take guru-level software engineering skills to replace a bunch of strings – and even if one has never done it before, it could be a valuable learning experience. Saving the core developers the time to make the change would certainly vastly increase the likelihood of the change being adopted in the actual codebase.
People who are offended enough by something to complain but not offended enough to do something simple to correct it can't really be that offended.
Posted Sep 22, 2018 9:57 UTC (Sat)
by Jandar (subscriber, #85683)
[Link] (1 responses)
This is not *the* relevant thing, it may be *a* relevant thing.
As you are consistently labeling all considerations other than yours as irrelevant, this discussion is clearly at a dead end. Your sophistry to denounce the validity of common usages of words is tiring.
I withdraw from this discussion with you. Feel free to speak with a wall.
Posted Sep 23, 2018 8:17 UTC (Sun)
by anotheruser (guest, #127270)
[Link]
They're like zombies. They just keep coming.
Sorry, Jon. It's true. And they'll be coming for you next.
Posted Sep 21, 2018 20:45 UTC (Fri)
by jrigg (guest, #30848)
[Link] (2 responses)
Software processes can be slaves. Mechanical devices can be slaves. Electronic devices can be slaves.
My copy of the Concise Oxford Dictionary includes "a machine, or part of one, directly controlled by another" in the list of definitions of 'slave'. Are you honestly claiming to be a greater authority on the English language than the Oxford Dictionary?
Posted Sep 23, 2018 16:34 UTC (Sun)
by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389)
[Link] (1 responses)
Is the Oxford Dictionary descriptive or prescriptive? When the "master/slave" terminology started to be used for technology, could one point to the OED and say "but it doesn't mean that!"?
Posted Sep 23, 2018 16:37 UTC (Sun)
by corbet (editor, #1)
[Link]
Thank you.
Posted Sep 22, 2018 18:17 UTC (Sat)
by johannbg (guest, #65743)
[Link] (6 responses)
As can be seen historically the resource of slaves came from conquests and poverty thus slavery does not discriminate between, color, religion, creed or sex despite how much an new found vocal part of colonists and slave descendants in America have grown a conscious for their ancestors and make it out to be all about the Africans and politically correct the world in the process.
As conquest and poverty being slavery's source pretty much every country in the world has either taken slaves,became slaves or both depending on the wealth and course of action of each nation through history.
Even here on this erupting rock in the middle of the north atlantic ocean a.k.a Iceland, my ancestors took women from Ireland/Scotland as slaves during roughly 200 viking history of raid's around 1000 AC and some Icelanders became slaves after slave raids by the Ottoman pirates who was run by a dutch captain by the name of jan Janszoon van Haarlem, a.k.a Murat Reis the Younger and later became Turk so most likely Turkey is where those Icelanders got sold to or otherwize traded.
Anyway I digress, the context of master/slave is not history or current events. The context is the field of applied science and that field has no bad history associated with these words no matter how many times you repeat it does so.
You and like minded people like you need to address the root of the problem which are what I previously mentioned here before instead of trying to formally control language usage in the field of applied science.
It will not yield whatever results you are trying to achieve. People's times will be waisted grepping for the label of master and or slave through code, publication etc. then somehow file reports trying to have them change.
If you have so much free time and energy to spend I suggest you take a copy of the bible to your local church and have an enlighten conversation with it's priest about what it contains and what the church viewpoint is on the matter and if they are going to change it.
Posted Sep 22, 2018 18:41 UTC (Sat)
by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
[Link] (5 responses)
Sure. That doesn't make it slavery, which is something that is only done to people and not to animals.
Posted Sep 22, 2018 20:00 UTC (Sat)
by johannbg (guest, #65743)
[Link] (4 responses)
Do you believe that non-human animals do not possess any intellect or dont have any emotions?
Is it that you somehow feel that accepting that slavery is also applicable to non-human animals dishonors the history of human slavery and the descendants?
And do you realize you are contradicting yourself by taking this stance and putting yourself right beside those that cringed at first in the past when presented with a new way of thinking with regards human slaves and regarding women?
Posted Sep 22, 2018 20:42 UTC (Sat)
by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
[Link] (3 responses)
Because that's what the word means. Slavery is defined as ownership of people.
Posted Sep 22, 2018 21:13 UTC (Sat)
by johannbg (guest, #65743)
[Link] (2 responses)
( servus from which the word in the english language comes from does not make that distinction )
Since your opinion is relying on a dictionary entry why do you choose to apply it's meaning to the field of applied science when the dictionary also states 1. which obviously would cause coallition/conflict/confusion in contextual meaning when done?
"1.3 A device, or part of one, directly controlled by another."
1. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/slave
Posted Sep 22, 2018 21:41 UTC (Sat)
by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
[Link] (1 responses)
If the word "slave" meant something other than what it means then yeah I'd probably feel differently. But it doesn't, and its use in technical contexts remains a direct reference to the ownership of people. As the barriers to becoming involved in technical communities continue to drop, more people are being exposed to that usage and it's become clearer that it's not possible to avoid the associated connotations.
Posted Sep 23, 2018 10:06 UTC (Sun)
by johannbg (guest, #65743)
[Link]
The only barriers that existz are those that people impose upon themselves through a misplaced believe in everything else but themselves and their own ability's to succeed.
The only thing a people require to partake in the field of applied science is a mobile device or a traditional computer ( or access to one ) which has an access to the internet.
Once they are there they need to create an email address for themselves, which they can do for free for example with google and then sign up for free at edx 1. if they want "formal" education, expand their horizon or just to do it for fun and or join whatever like minded community they find on the internet.
That's all the potential technical barrier that exist period.
The rest is up to the individuals themselves.
Next you will propably look too hard into male and female sockets and find some discrimination taking place there and want to abolish those from everywhere or police it's usage in the english language o_O
Remember community is reflected in it's leader(s) as are nations in their president so I suggest you take good hard look at yours and evaluate if your time is best spent creating artifical problems in the field of applied science or fixing real problems closer to home, that is if you want to do some good in this world.
Posted Sep 21, 2018 20:31 UTC (Fri)
by jrigg (guest, #30848)
[Link] (3 responses)
My own feelings exactly.
Posted Sep 22, 2018 1:10 UTC (Sat)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (2 responses)
> My own feelings exactly.
And leads to *suppression* of the issue, not *healing*.
If the PC crowd can ban the language used to discuss bad things, they actively obstruct solving the problem. If, on the other hand, you actually have the words available to you to talk things through, you have a chance of putting things right.
Made all the more complicated in the AngloSaxon world by the fact that we do NOT all speak the same language. English is different from American is different from Strine is different from Pidgin ...
(and as many people here will know, I find the term "British English" rather offensive... :-)
Cheers,
Posted Sep 22, 2018 1:20 UTC (Sat)
by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Sep 22, 2018 9:10 UTC (Sat)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link]
Basically, I'm with Bradley on this - if your language upsets other people for good reason, then don't do it. Just be aware that sometimes people use certain language because that's all the words they have available, and if you ban words then you are censoring them out of the discussion.
I feel that because I was blocked from taking part in any racial discussions on Groklaw. PJ's blogs, PJ's rules, fair enough, but my language was considered unacceptable and I had no alternative.
Cheers,
Posted Sep 24, 2018 2:38 UTC (Mon)
by fest3er (guest, #60379)
[Link]
Never mind that 'black' man is black whether he is healthy, ill, nauseous, happy, sad, embarrassed, envious, jaundiced, cowardly, etc. But the equivalent 'white' man is blue when he's sad, green when he's envious or nauseous, red when he's embarrassed or angry, and yellow when he runs away from a situation requiring courage or is bitter and resentful. Which is the 'man of color' again?
But I digress....
Posted Sep 21, 2018 6:51 UTC (Fri)
by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
[Link]
Because we no longer ignore people who raise the topic.
Posted Sep 24, 2018 19:13 UTC (Mon)
by mezcalero (subscriber, #45103)
[Link] (1 responses)
If you find the master/slave naming problematic, please work with the kernel folks to change it in the APIs. But without that there's nothing we can do really, as these APIs are only available under these names currently.
Lennart
Posted Sep 24, 2018 22:40 UTC (Mon)
by nix (subscriber, #2304)
[Link]
... sorry, the devil made me say it ---
Posted Sep 20, 2018 8:55 UTC (Thu)
by patrick_g (subscriber, #44470)
[Link]
Usually it's very high quality and in depth articles with good documentation. I remember this one in particular : https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2006/08/28/manifold-de...
That's why I'm a little bit disappointed about this article on Linus.
Posted Sep 20, 2018 14:04 UTC (Thu)
by amk (subscriber, #19)
[Link]
Posted Sep 22, 2018 7:52 UTC (Sat)
by gmatht (guest, #58961)
[Link]
Posted Sep 20, 2018 13:39 UTC (Thu)
by dskoll (subscriber, #1630)
[Link] (2 responses)
Biased how? Could you give a concrete example of bias from the article? It seemed to me to be a pretty dispassionate reporting of various peoples' views.
Posted Sep 20, 2018 14:23 UTC (Thu)
by patrick_g (subscriber, #44470)
[Link] (1 responses)
Stating that Linus's emails are "full of invective, insults, and demeaning language" as if they were all like this. Nothing is said about the proportion of aggressive emails compared to the total numbers of emails sent.
Then there are disparaging comments made by Sage Sharp and Valerie Aurora about Linus' behavior ("Linus has created a model of leadership—which is being an asshole") but no critical analysis is done about these comments and no counter-arguments are offered from other points of view.
IMHO it is apparent that the author tried very hard to present a biased view of the situation.
Posted Sep 23, 2018 8:20 UTC (Sun)
by anotheruser (guest, #127270)
[Link]
The New Yorker is heavily biased to the left. You should expect nothing else.
Yep.
Mommy, Linux said mean things to me.... for being stupid.
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
It's a worrying thought but you make a good point. There seems to have been a sudden increase in episodes of this type in the FOSS world, eg. the Redis project being forced to remove 'offensive' words like 'master' and 'slave' from the documentation.
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
Im against any kind of discrimination like about gender or sexual orientation. But trying so hard to comply with the ambiant political correctness, and explicitly demonstrating such compliance to it, is more about rogue marketing than real fairness.
This is also the reason i tend to unfollow most of French OSS club and associations. Since 5 years they become the headquarter of political LGBT propaganda, mixed with faked progressism under transhumanism propaganda.
And it is sad to see that many of those opinion leaders, are unable to produce any kind of code so far. But they tend to have big mouth to compensate.
And today is even more dangerous than before, you can be killed socially on twitter, judged by crowd long before a judge hears about you.
Weinstein is quite a typical illustration of this where the guy was socially and economically assassinated long before being interviewed by a judge.
An old rule in France, is that you are innocent until prooved guilty by a judge. But this totally disappeared with the emergence of minority political propaganda, where a simple accusation on social media as more effect than what a meticulous survey and a court would have.
Fairness was about beeing treated equaly, especially in front of Justice.
Today in name of fairness and equality toward "suffering minorities", you can be instant killed socially and economically. This is not real Justice, just is just dark age. Peoples failed to understand that, and fall easely in the trap.
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
Put in perspective that at 2018 FOSDEM event, at almost all BigNames exhibition stand, there was a Transexual in the staff (or several).
Im against any kind of discrimination like about gender or sexual orientation. But trying so hard to comply with the ambiant political correctness, and explicitly demonstrating such compliance to it, is more about rogue marketing than real fairness.
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
Having a transexual in a team of 3 or 4, is far above 390/100000 proportion.
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
Wol
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
Wol
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
Wol
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
Wol
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
If, on the other hand, two male (or female) work colleagues - holding hands - walked up to me and made a point of being gay, then yes I would consider that as being "in my face" or "in my space", and I would consider it abusive.
But you probably wouldn't consider it abusive if two newly-married heterosexual coworkers were acting rather like lovebirds in the office (as is usually the case at that sort of stage in a relationship).
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
In-your-face activity of any kind may well upset someone, so small c conservatism and get on with your job.
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
Wol
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
If, on the other hand, two male (or female) work colleagues - holding hands - walked up to me and made a point of being gay
Two gay friends, making me very uncomfortable, but it was very much "this is what we are", and not "pushing it at me", so you just have to accept them as basically decent people with a different value system.
Sexuality and gender identity have nothing to do with one's "value system". They are an integral part of one's identity and not something you can change. (You can suppress them, sure, but you can't change your fundamental nature.)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
...as an Evangelical Christian, the belief that homosexuality is wrong comes with the territory...
Often, maybe usually, but evangelical Christianity is wide enough that there are a lot of churches and Christians that would call themselves evangelical without subscribing to that particular belief. They tend to be quieter about not holding the belief than those who do hold it.
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
Note that, if there are around 390/1,000,000 transsexual people expected in the population as a whole
So having 25% or 33% of staff being transexual, is by no mean beating the odds. Therefore, it suggests a conscious will and power to reach this situation.
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
Wol
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
https://twitter.com/antirez/status/1038094104129937408
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
http://antirez.com/news/122
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
It is possible to be forced by public opinion. Why do these discussions always seem to become confrontational?
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
So David are you on a mission to change the well established and widely used engineering terminology of master/slave which has no cultural implications and is widely used in various industries and fields of engineering ( cars for example have master and slave cylinders etc ) and have been used for decades because you have suddenly decide to associate and apply an cultural implication to the termology in the fields of computer engineering?
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
Wol
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
has obviously *nothing* to do with human slavery.
Just how many datasheets and schematics are there out there that talk about master and slave bus devices MOSI and MISO signals (Master Out Slave In..)?
Anyone trying to help victims of human slavery or prosecute the perpetrators deserves every support but just trying to remove words from technical language that have been in use for decades does absolutely nothing to help victims of modern day slavery.
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
>> Err, I do.
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
IMHO Python devs agreed to make thez change just to get rid of this stupid issue.
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
> humans can be slaves.
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
> Apparently very few people do and that makes all the
> difference.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less."
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master-that's all."
Through the Looking Glass, Ch. VI
I only bother posting this due to the wonderful coincidence of the word "master" being involved.
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
The last bastion of 90's hacker culture has died, and it wasn't due to a technically superior project coming along as I always assumed would happen, but due to politics. The eternal September takes one final victim.
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
She pointed out that he was the only one to vote against the CoC's adoption
and he also (AFAIR) downplayed sexual assault in an argument a couple years ago.
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
Wol
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
2.https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1438888/
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
> but only humans can be slaves.
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
2.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnins.2018.0...
3. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4020-5684...
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
Can we please end this discussion now? It has gone on way beyond any point of usefulness...
Please!
Please!
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
I'll suggest, again, that this thread has run its course; can we please let it rest now?
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
What part of "no true Scotsman fallacy" do you fail to understand?
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
On "slave" as a term in software
On "slave" as a term in software
On "slave" as a term in software
On "slave" as a term in software
Does this look like genuine concern to you? It looks like trolling to me. There is a very real danger that in an attempt to appear more inclusive we just introduce more busy-work and conflict and not really change anything for the better.
On "slave" as a term in software
Does this look like genuine concern to you? It looks like trolling to me. There is a very real danger that in an attempt to appear more inclusive we just introduce more busy-work and conflict and not really change anything for the better.
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
I honestly believe that the "master/slave" discussion has proceeded past the point of usefulness; there will be no minds changed that have not been changed so far. So I would like to gently suggest that perhaps it's time to move on.
A request
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
Wol
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
Wol
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
(*) The American mannerism to describe non-causasian people as "of color" is one of the most racist terms known to me. This is a claim that there is a fundamental partitioning between white and the remainder (called "of color"). Describing someone as "black", "red" or "green" is a description of visual characteristics, "of color" is the presumption of a singular distinction between white and non-white, at which the distinction between all other color counts nothing against being non-white.
----
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
Not much chance of destroying Linux now
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)
After Years of Abusive E-mails, the Creator of Linux Steps Aside (The New Yorker)