FordGT90Concept

It's fitting really. Linux itself is derailed too.


I'm just not sure what else to say about it. It's never going to go back to what it was. I doubt forking it is worth the trouble. And I think the hardcore *nix types are going to settle with one of the BSDs (in a way, this is a good thing. BSD has a better license.. and doesn't have systemd). The bad thing is all of the hard work of trying to build an alternative consumer and/or gamer OS may have to be redone. Even Gnome doesn't work the same on BSD (since it has systemd dependencies itself now).

AlwaysHope18 pages already this thread, I'm surprised at how TPU tolerates this because essentially it is political.

I think this thread is an experiment. A weird one. What the goal might be is unclear, but the Mods/Staff have been watching...

StrayKATIt's fitting really. Linux itself is derailed too.

I agree with this..

StrayKATI'm just not sure what else to say about it. It's never going to go back to what it was. I doubt forking it is worth the trouble.

Not with this. Much of the world is far too invested in Linux to simply abandon it and jump ship. Besides, while things are in need of being worked out, it's not that bad.

StrayKATin a way, this is a good thing. BSD has a better license..

That's a good point, however, the license for Linux can be changed.

moproblems99Equal opportunity is often misconstrued. All equal opportunity means is that every person has the chance to improve their life from where they started. If you make an effort, work hard, and make good decisions then you can move up in class rank. Equal opportunity does not mean that the government is going to step in and make sure everyone plays nice in the sandbox.

Now, that doesn't mean any laws enacted since the country was founded are right, wrong, or indifferent. Obviously, some people have it easier then others and I am pretty sure most people (privately) cannot deny that. Frankly, I don't really care what laws are in place because I'll call a spade a spade regardless if it hurts their feelings if the situation is appropriate. Beyond that, common sense rules. Honestly, if people followed common sense, we wouldn't be in this mess.

So, equal opportunity does not mean equal opportunity?

Let's see:

Merriam-WebsterDefinition of Opportunity
1 : a favorable juncture of circumstances
2 : a good chance for advancement or progress

In other words, you can't simply remove the starting point from the debate when discussing opportunity, as the starting point is what defines the opportunity, and equal opportunity must then include efforts to equalize people's starting points. A road with no roadblocks is not an equal opportunity to two people if one has a Ferrari and the other has only one leg.

FordGT90ConceptBackwards: the threat is that developers that previously contributed under GPL 2.0 copyright their code because Linux Foundation adopted a extremist, politically motivated Code of Conduct.

But the question is: why would they do this? Has anyone threatened anyone with consequences due to violating the CoC, where this violation was trumped-up or overblown? If not, they have nothing to fear, particularly if they're mature enough to admit fault, apologize for any missteps, and move on.

FordGT90ConceptYou are correct, it isn't a "right" in formal terms. It's a guidance some organizations recommend. For example, ABA: www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_code_of_judicial_conduct/model_code_of_judicial_conduct_canon_2/rule2_6ensuringtherighttobeheard.html

My point was that nothing bad comes from listening.

A lot of bad comes from uninformed people listening to extremists and populists. Case in point: Trump, the current rise of hate speech and related violence in the US, and the extremely polarized political climate you have. Far more important to listening to anyone who will speak is ensuring easy and plentiful access to informed analysis and aid in processing complex issues where a certain level of expertise (which can't necessarily be expected of the general population) is required to fully understand the issue. The extreme commercialization of news reporting in the US (and generally in the Western world, though to varying degrees) is almost entirely to blame for this. If news outlets didn't have to fight for viewers and ad revenue, they'd be far more free to present reasonable and nuanced views of the news, rather than the sensationalist stuff we get today.

FordGT90ConceptThey ebb and flow. Far left extremists haven't been prominent since the 1960s. Case in point, KKK only has 3000-6000 members today. They are likely still the biggest on the right.

What about the Tea Party? Don't they qualify as a far-right extremist group? While they might not be violent, their ideology is indisputably extremist, and while they don't have a membership roster, their supporters number in the millions.

FordGT90ConceptYou're forgetting "warrior," aka, belligerent, aka, extremist.

"Warrior", especially in a metaphorical sense such as this, is accounted for by "fighting for" in the part you quoted. Your understanding ("warrior = extremist") implies that anyone you term an SJW is unwilling to compromise (otherwise, they wouldn't be extremists, would they?). Isn't that quite a dramatic overreach? Either your definition limits the term SJW to only the few extremists unwilling to compromise or enter into productive dialogue, or it covers anyone and everyone fighting for social justice (which definitely is the colloquial use of the term). You can't have it both ways.

FordGT90ConceptMost recent attack was in 2008 arson at Street of Dreams. They're on the FBI's terror list. Yes, they're declining in prominence.

I never said they weren't extremists, just that they don't seem to be possible to classify as left-wing extremists. It is entirely possible for a single-cause organization to exist outside of/across a wide swath of the left-right political axis.

FordGT90ConceptMy bad, should he been BIE: Black Identity Extremist. Basically the violent elements inside of Black Lives Matter, Black Panther Party, and similar movements.

FordGT90ConceptFanatical population on the left is in the 100s of thousands or millions

Please stop trying to move the goal posts in the middle of the discussion. Either these are extremist fringe groups (which I largely don't contest, outside of your rather ludicrous inclusion of the slur 'SJW' in this context), or they're mass movements - to call them both, you'd actually need some evidence to that fact. You're even admitting that they are fringe groups, which entirely undermines your initial point.

FordGT90ConceptExtremist views are always extremist. There isn't a big fascist movement in the USA. They're taking general concepts they hate and turn them to violence. Take Charlottesville for example. It started with BLM sympathizers vandalizing Civil War monuments. A rally was organized to draw attention to the vandalization of said monuments--there were far-right members in their ranks (I don't think a specific group was named). There was a counter-protest also organized (with Anti-Fa extremists in their ranks). Police literally watched members of the far left and far right beat each other before they intervened. Right is accelerant, left is a heat source, police are supposed to fight the fire and didn't. Police policy is to keep the two elements physically separated.

There have been investigations into the lack of police intervention in Charlottesville showing significant far-right sympathies in the police force there, which goes some way in explaining why they refused to intervene - in right-wing propaganda, either they'd be the strong and valorous victors if they won the fight, or the valiant victims of violent far-left extremists. Not all that surprising. Also, no left-wing extremists ran their car at full speed into a crowd of non-violent protesters. Just saying.

FordGT90ConceptThe most recent terror attack by a extreme right group was committed by the Jewish Defense League in 2001. There was two committed by the Earth Liberation Front since then (most recent in 2008). Antifa/BIE aren't organized like ELF and JDL.

If you look at large, well-organized groups, you're likely right. On the other hand, there's quite the amount of "lone-wolf" or small-group terrorism perpetrated by far-right (and in particular, extremist misogynist) extremists in recent years. Here's a small selection.
Elliot Rodger's murder spree (2014), the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge (2016), the Bundy standoff (2014), the 2014 Las Vegas shootings, Overland Park community centre shootings (also 2014), the Wisconsin Sikh Temple shooting (2012) .... the list goes on. While I'm not saying that these are (by far!) the only terrorist attacks on US soil in the last decade, nor that only right-wing extremists commit acts of terror (the spread is rather wide, though if you (rightly) include Islamist extremists on the right (ideologically, there is no doubt that they are), the right has a near-monopoly on terrorism), the point you're tying to make here is flat-out false.

FordGT90ConceptI spent probably an hour trying to dig around for active gangs and extremist groups in the USA. I found an old list on the FBI but it seems that the current list is held by the Department of Homeland Security which doesn't share it. Well, New Jersey apparently did:
www.njhomelandsecurity.gov/analysis/anarchist-extremists-antifa
I quote: "Antifa: Inciting Violence Toward Far-Right Extremists"

There's no doubt that Antifa is a violent group - responding to violent right-wing rhetoric and ideology with physical violence, to force them off the streets, is one of their core tenets. As @R-T-B stated somewhere above, I don't (at all!) condone or agree with their methods (I think I said it somewhere before in this thread, but it bears repeating: I think violence of any kind in almost any situation is abhorrent, wrong and a bad thing), but I applaud their goal. The only thing they hate is other people's hatred, unlike the people they fight.

FordGT90ConceptI'm appalled by how little information the federal government makes available about active domestic threats in the USA. That wraps back into the link above where it feels like there's a deliberate coverup of known activity. It might be because publicizing information would give credibility to these extremist groups which, in turn, would be used to recruit more members. Silence hampers their growth.

Exactly. Making public a list like this would be like creating a version of The Yellow Pages for disgruntled people looking for a violent extremist group to join. Not a good idea. Nor is it a good idea to let these groups know they're under surveillance or investigation either.

FordGT90ConceptActually there's a pretty strong argument that the decline in violence from the 1980s to today can be attributed to de-leading everything. Violence is still most common in areas where de-leading hasn't happened in earnest. Example, Detroit (one of the most violent cities) won't get all of their lead pipes replaced for decades.

There's a strong correlation there, yes, but causation isn't proven (at least not yet), and as far as I can tell from the linked article (had to use a VPN to read it :eek: ) they haven't corrected for changes in poverty levels/socioeconomic inequality or other relevant factors. I don't doubt there's something there, but claiming this to be a 1:1 relationship would seem a bit far-fetched. Still, it makes a solid argument for government oversight and regulation when it comes to pollution, chemicals and environmental damage, at least.

FordGT90Conceptaka "humans being human." Laws/rules/codes don't stop anyone from doing anything. They simply disincentive behavior society frowns upon by assigning punishments for doing them.

Yet over time, laws (when implemented and enforced intelligently) lead to changed social norms, which leads to changed behaviour. The gay rights movement and the extreme difference in levels of homophobia in today's young when compared to people a generation or so older is a good example of this.

FordGT90ConceptActually you can as long as there is evidence to warrant a restraining order.

That's the problem. How do you gather court-level evidence of workplace harassment? Videotaping every social interaction you have at work? Disregarding how deeply problematic that is, it would also be illegal most places, not to mention likely grounds for firing at quite a few companies. Also, in most criminal cases even, witness or victim testimony is accepted as evidence. Why shouldn't it be when it comes to harassment?

FordGT90ConceptWatch the video. Children increasingly don't know how to behave in unsheltered situations like social conflict. They don't know how to empathize with an opposing view nor protect their identity from outside influence.

You're last sentence is exactly what is wrong. Children are supposed to learn how to overcome obstacles as a function of maturing. Children that are never confronted by obstacles reach college and suddenly they're exposed to concepts they never fathomed before. Because they're physically mature at that point, opposing view points feel like an assault to them because they lack the tools how to deal with it. Bending society as a whole in order to continue to shelter them worsens their developmental problem by fortifying it.

I'm not saying you're entirely wrong (I'm really not a fan of overprotective parenting), but I think you're attributing too much to this, and making too strong a link between these elements. Again: correlation does not imply causation. There's likely to be some link, but the increased acceptance for and possibility of speaking out against harassment and mistreatment is far more likely to be a cause of these movements (both those that go to far, and the majority who do not). Still, (and please correct me if I'm wrong here) you come off as arguing that kids should "toughen up" and "stop whining", neither of which are productive approaches. Children do need to learn to overcome obstacles, yes, but the important part is that they learn this in a safe and constructive manner. There's plenty of psychological research showing that exposing young people to bad situations mainly leads to mental illness and suppression of feelings, which is extremely harmful to both the people involved and society in general. Children need to be raised in a safe environment where they're given the means to process and deal with the obstacles they need and express their feelings about this in constructive ways. Again, I might be attributing things to you that you're not actually expressing (mainly due to your rhetoric and where I'm used to seeing that type of rhetoric), so again, please correct me if I'm wrong here.

StrayKATHis first act was trying to fix Obamacare (not repealing it), and it got smashed down (both by Republicans and Dems - notoriously by John McCain in a deciding vote). His gameplan was to do that before anything. This was more left-of-center policy.

Now if the R's get more votes come November, they'll more than likely just repeal the whole thing entirely. So..... good job everybody. You had a chance at salvaging it. And if Dems win, well.. you'll get something that was intentionally destructive. So... good job for that too. :rockout:

Trump never had an actual plan to "fix" Obamacare (seriously, all he ever said was to the effect of "Oh, we'll come up with something"), and everything he had expressed in detail was a desire to shrink and deconstruct it, not deal with its shortcomings. The amendment to it was shot down as it would destroy it in all but name.

StrayKATThey say they stand for some of the same policies he does.

Do you know that Trump want to reinstate Glass-Steagall? This is FDR/New Deal/Leftist policy. Something Bernie and Elizabeth Warren say they want - the most Left wing of the Left wing, if there ever were some. But they would rather "Resist!" before getting something done. It's irrational.

Do you know he wants to repair and build infrastructure across the country? Another mostly leftist concern.

Do you know he wants to repair inner cities? Who do they represent if they can't even meet him at the White House and hash out policy together? One Black congressman accepted an invitation early in his adminstration and got crap for it. The Congressional Black Caucus shamed him and now he refuses to even talk. And when he announces low unemployment, it's met with silence. Just watch below. It's less than 30 seconds. How is this "bad news"? They act like they're at a funeral.

And who does "Maxine Waters" really represent, when she's living in a mansion not even in her own district, and has a net worth of tens of millions that's way beyond the low six figure salary of a congress member? Yet she's apparently some "hero" of the Left, winning awards about how "woke" she is. Get real, man!

The US doesn't really have a political left. Again, this is logical, due to the immense federal campaigns and persecution against left-leaning politicians and thinkers in the post-WWII period. The Democratic Party is ideologically to the right of our Conservative Party here in Norway, as an example. Most Democrats are neoliberals, just as most (moderate) republicans. It's a matter of degree, and the US political spectrum is frighteningly narrow and right-leaning. The current resurgence of the (actual!) political left in the US is still in its infancy, and it's rather naive to expect it to somehow have anything to do with mainstream Democrats. Also, while pointing out hypocrisy among politicians is always important, I'd say Trump stuffing his cabinet with cherry-picked foxes for all the relevant hen-houses is ... well, at the very least not "draining the swamp." He's put the alligators in charge. And yes, I'm mixing metaphors. It's hard to avoid when discussing Trump.

As for why the Democrats shun Trump, it's rather easily attributable to his racism (seriously, the Obama birther campaign? That was his baby, and it's old-school racism to the core) and his fundamental untrustworthiness. Who would want to go across the aisle to reach a compromise with someone who you can't then trust to actually follow through on it? Trump (intentionally, IMO) gives off an image as an impulsive and temperamental president. That does not invite cooperation. Quite the opposite.

FordGT90ConceptI went down the rabbit hole and finally found where the thread starts:
(...)

All I could really see in those posts were a bunch of serious adults addressing various issues in serious ways. As for calling a theoretical discussion of how the "succession" of Torvalds ought to happen a "coup", that's ... quite absurd. He can't lead them forever, and it's understandable that they're worried about his leadership if he seems to actively avoid taking part in it. This isn't a coup, it's a reasonable response to an unknown and unforeseen situation that still hasn't occurred, but which would have very serious consequences if it did.

lexluthermiesterI think this thread is an experiment. A weird one. What the goal might be is unclear, but the Mods/Staff have been watching...

Maybe they're realizing that banning politics is impossible, seeing how there's no such thing as an apolitical discussion? Or maybe they just realized that they can't avoid coming off as woefully hypocritical if they allow the posting of an editorial like this, and then disallow discussion of it afterwards? Who knows.

ValantarMaybe they're realizing that banning politics is impossible, seeing how there's no such thing as an apolitical discussion? Or maybe they just realized that they can't avoid coming off as woefully hypocritical if they allow the posting of an editorial like this, and then disallow discussion of it afterwards? Who knows.

That's interesting, but I think there's something more, possibly deeper, going on.

lexluthermiesterThat's interesting, but I think there's something more, possibly deeper, going on.

As in, care to elaborate?

R-T-BBTW, I hate the electoral college, but different issue.

You know why it exists, right? One of the many genius things our founders set up. Without it, you would have one party continually power because of the population in just a few states being a political majority. The beauty of our system is that the pendulum swings back and forth.

It’s a check and balance, just like how the Senate was set up to counter the large population voices of the House of Representatives. One party, or a few states having continual and total say in the country is never good.

R0H1TAs in, care to elaborate?

Nope. While I have a theory, that's all it is.

ValantarAs for calling a theoretical discussion of how the "succession" of Torvalds ought to happen a "coup", that's ... quite absurd.

I was quoting Torvalds but I didn't copy the message where he said it (post was already long and difficult to navigate anyway--the branching nature of the threads would only serve to confuse). There was two people in particular that vocalized that they want him gone. Usurping those in power is, by definition, a coup.

Torvalds wasn't opposed to the idea of a change of leadership. He just wants to contribute code. He deliberately scheduled his vacation to Scotland when the Maintainership Summit was scheduled to happen to forcibly remove himself from the process so they could talk about succession in earnest without his influence.



As for the rest, don't take non-response as agreement. It's off topic and I don't have interest in digging deeper.

ValantarSo, equal opportunity does not mean equal opportunity?

Let's see:

In other words, you can't simply remove the starting point from the debate when discussing opportunity, as the starting point is what defines the opportunity, and equal opportunity must then include efforts to equalize people's starting points. A road with no roadblocks is not an equal opportunity to two people if one has a Ferrari and the other has only one leg.


But the question is: why would they do this? Has anyone threatened anyone with consequences due to violating the CoC, where this violation was trumped-up or overblown? If not, they have nothing to fear, particularly if they're mature enough to admit fault, apologize for any missteps, and move on.


A lot of bad comes from uninformed people listening to extremists and populists. Case in point: Trump, the current rise of hate speech and related violence in the US, and the extremely polarized political climate you have. Far more important to listening to anyone who will speak is ensuring easy and plentiful access to informed analysis and aid in processing complex issues where a certain level of expertise (which can't necessarily be expected of the general population) is required to fully understand the issue. The extreme commercialization of news reporting in the US (and generally in the Western world, though to varying degrees) is almost entirely to blame for this. If news outlets didn't have to fight for viewers and ad revenue, they'd be far more free to present reasonable and nuanced views of the news, rather than the sensationalist stuff we get today.


What about the Tea Party? Don't they qualify as a far-right extremist group? While they might not be violent, their ideology is indisputably extremist, and while they don't have a membership roster, their supporters number in the millions.


"Warrior", especially in a metaphorical sense such as this, is accounted for by "fighting for" in the part you quoted. Your understanding ("warrior = extremist") implies that anyone you term an SJW is unwilling to compromise (otherwise, they wouldn't be extremists, would they?). Isn't that quite a dramatic overreach? Either your definition limits the term SJW to only the few extremists unwilling to compromise or enter into productive dialogue, or it covers anyone and everyone fighting for social justice (which definitely is the colloquial use of the term). You can't have it both ways.


I never said they weren't extremists, just that they don't seem to be possible to classify as left-wing extremists. It is entirely possible for a single-cause organization to exist outside of/across a wide swath of the left-right political axis.




Please stop trying to move the goal posts in the middle of the discussion. Either these are extremist fringe groups (which I largely don't contest, outside of your rather ludicrous inclusion of the slur 'SJW' in this context), or they're mass movements - to call them both, you'd actually need some evidence to that fact. You're even admitting that they are fringe groups, which entirely undermines your initial point.


There have been investigations into the lack of police intervention in Charlottesville showing significant far-right sympathies in the police force there, which goes some way in explaining why they refused to intervene - in right-wing propaganda, either they'd be the strong and valorous victors if they won the fight, or the valiant victims of violent far-left extremists. Not all that surprising. Also, no left-wing extremists ran their car at full speed into a crowd of non-violent protesters. Just saying.


If you look at large, well-organized groups, you're likely right. On the other hand, there's quite the amount of "lone-wolf" or small-group terrorism perpetrated by far-right (and in particular, extremist misogynist) extremists in recent years. Here's a small selection.
Elliot Rodger's murder spree (2014), the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge (2016), the Bundy standoff (2014), the 2014 Las Vegas shootings, Overland Park community centre shootings (also 2014), the Wisconsin Sikh Temple shooting (2012) .... the list goes on. While I'm not saying that these are (by far!) the only terrorist attacks on US soil in the last decade, nor that only right-wing extremists commit acts of terror (the spread is rather wide, though if you (rightly) include Islamist extremists on the right (ideologically, there is no doubt that they are), the right has a near-monopoly on terrorism), the point you're tying to make here is flat-out false.


There's no doubt that Antifa is a violent group - responding to violent right-wing rhetoric and ideology with physical violence, to force them off the streets, is one of their core tenets. As @R-T-B stated somewhere above, I don't (at all!) condone or agree with their methods (I think I said it somewhere before in this thread, but it bears repeating: I think violence of any kind in almost any situation is abhorrent, wrong and a bad thing), but I applaud their goal. The only thing they hate is other people's hatred, unlike the people they fight.


Exactly. Making public a list like this would be like creating a version of The Yellow Pages for disgruntled people looking for a violent extremist group to join. Not a good idea. Nor is it a good idea to let these groups know they're under surveillance or investigation either.


There's a strong correlation there, yes, but causation isn't proven (at least not yet), and as far as I can tell from the linked article (had to use a VPN to read it :eek: ) they haven't corrected for changes in poverty levels/socioeconomic inequality or other relevant factors. I don't doubt there's something there, but claiming this to be a 1:1 relationship would seem a bit far-fetched. Still, it makes a solid argument for government oversight and regulation when it comes to pollution, chemicals and environmental damage, at least.


Yet over time, laws (when implemented and enforced intelligently) lead to changed social norms, which leads to changed behaviour. The gay rights movement and the extreme difference in levels of homophobia in today's young when compared to people a generation or so older is a good example of this.


That's the problem. How do you gather court-level evidence of workplace harassment? Videotaping every social interaction you have at work? Disregarding how deeply problematic that is, it would also be illegal most places, not to mention likely grounds for firing at quite a few companies. Also, in most criminal cases even, witness or victim testimony is accepted as evidence. Why shouldn't it be when it comes to harassment?


I'm not saying you're entirely wrong (I'm really not a fan of overprotective parenting), but I think you're attributing too much to this, and making too strong a link between these elements. Again: correlation does not imply causation. There's likely to be some link, but the increased acceptance for and possibility of speaking out against harassment and mistreatment is far more likely to be a cause of these movements (both those that go to far, and the majority who do not). Still, (and please correct me if I'm wrong here) you come off as arguing that kids should "toughen up" and "stop whining", neither of which are productive approaches. Children do need to learn to overcome obstacles, yes, but the important part is that they learn this in a safe and constructive manner. There's plenty of psychological research showing that exposing young people to bad situations mainly leads to mental illness and suppression of feelings, which is extremely harmful to both the people involved and society in general. Children need to be raised in a safe environment where they're given the means to process and deal with the obstacles they need and express their feelings about this in constructive ways. Again, I might be attributing things to you that you're not actually expressing (mainly due to your rhetoric and where I'm used to seeing that type of rhetoric), so again, please correct me if I'm wrong here.


Trump never had an actual plan to "fix" Obamacare (seriously, all he ever said was to the effect of "Oh, we'll come up with something"), and everything he had expressed in detail was a desire to shrink and deconstruct it, not deal with its shortcomings. The amendment to it was shot down as it would destroy it in all but name.

The US doesn't really have a political left. Again, this is logical, due to the immense federal campaigns and persecution against left-leaning politicians and thinkers in the post-WWII period. The Democratic Party is ideologically to the right of our Conservative Party here in Norway, as an example. Most Democrats are neoliberals, just as most (moderate) republicans. It's a matter of degree, and the US political spectrum is frighteningly narrow and right-leaning. The current resurgence of the (actual!) political left in the US is still in its infancy, and it's rather naive to expect it to somehow have anything to do with mainstream Democrats. Also, while pointing out hypocrisy among politicians is always important, I'd say Trump stuffing his cabinet with cherry-picked foxes for all the relevant hen-houses is ... well, at the very least not "draining the swamp." He's put the alligators in charge. And yes, I'm mixing metaphors. It's hard to avoid when discussing Trump.

As for why the Democrats shun Trump, it's rather easily attributable to his racism (seriously, the Obama birther campaign? That was his baby, and it's old-school racism to the core) and his fundamental untrustworthiness. Who would want to go across the aisle to reach a compromise with someone who you can't then trust to actually follow through on it? Trump (intentionally, IMO) gives off an image as an impulsive and temperamental president. That does not invite cooperation. Quite the opposite.

All I could really see in those posts were a bunch of serious adults addressing various issues in serious ways. As for calling a theoretical discussion of how the "succession" of Torvalds ought to happen a "coup", that's ... quite absurd. He can't lead them forever, and it's understandable that they're worried about his leadership if he seems to actively avoid taking part in it. This isn't a coup, it's a reasonable response to an unknown and unforeseen situation that still hasn't occurred, but which would have very serious consequences if it did.

Maybe they're realizing that banning politics is impossible, seeing how there's no such thing as an apolitical discussion? Or maybe they just realized that they can't avoid coming off as woefully hypocritical if they allow the posting of an editorial like this, and then disallow discussion of it afterwards? Who knows.

I'd reply more, but decided to control myself from all of these derails. I agree that banning politics is impossible, but I hate being the guy "always there" :D

Anyways...just wanted to acknowledge your post.

lexluthermiesterI think this thread is an experiment. A weird one. What the goal might be is unclear,
That's a good point, however, the license for Linux can be changed.

I know the license hasn't changed. I'm just saying jumping ship may be good anyways. The CoC may be a blessing in disguise and get people to reassess other *nix OSes.

edit: NOT FreeBSD btw. They adopted an even goofier CoC recently. Where it's "sexual harassment" if you emote *hug* in the mailing list or any other official channel. lol

rtwjunkieYou know why it exists, right? One of the many genius things our founders set up. Without it, you would have one party continually power because of the population in just a few states being a political majority. The beauty of our system is that the pendulum swings back and forth.

It’s a check and balance, just like how the Senate was set up to counter the large population voices of the House of Representatives. One party, or a few states having continual and total say in the country is never good.

That's not what bugs me about it. Sorry, should have clarified a bit there, a bit of OT incoming:

You probably wouldn't expect this but what bugs me about the college is the fact that it's not automatic. People vote in it, and people can change their minds or be swayed to vote against instruction. The democrats tried to lever this against Trump in this very election actually.

It's a good idea but rather silly implementation. No denying it usually works as planned though.

StrayKATThe CoC may be a blessing in disguise and get people to reassess other *nix OSes.

I think that's incredibly wishful thinking. I don't think everyone is going to think, "Hmm, because of the CoC, lets just jump ship and go use a real Unix." I think the reality is that Linux will continue to power forward, CoC or no CoC. I think Linus will continue to shoot down bad PRs like he does now, but we just won't get to enjoy this kind of language:

Linus TorvaldsI fart in your general direction and call your mother a hamster.

Sauce

StrayKATI'm just not sure what else to say about it. It's never going to go back to what it was.

As I've said repeatedly, this is incredibly pessimistic IMO. I have a feeling nothing will change.

R-T-BAs I've said repeatedly, this is incredibly pessimistic IMO. I have a feeling nothing will change.

It's not meant to be pessimistic or optimistic. I'm just saying that any attempt of ever getting the CoC out is going to fail. I'm pessimistic about the quality of software it'll introduce, but that's irrelevant to this particular point. I'm just saying the CoC isn't going anywhere. Especially not anytime soon.

StrayKATIt's not meant to be pessimistic or optimistic. I'm just saying that any attempt of ever getting the CoC out is going to fail. I'm pessimistic about the quality of software it'll introduce, but that's irrelevant to this particular point. I'm just saying the CoC isn't going anywhere. Especially not anytime soon.

I'm not and if you haven't already, I highly suggest reading this email to the kernel maintainer mailing list. Linus has every intention of continuing to work on Linux and that this is all about his behavior and not the work he's done.

AquinusI think that's incredibly wishful thinking. I don't think everyone is going to think, "Hmm, because of the CoC, lets just jump ship and go use a real Unix." I think the reality is that Linux will continue to power forward, CoC or no CoC. I think Linus will continue to shoot down bad PRs like he does now, but we just won't get to enjoy this kind of language:

Sauce

People who want UNIX or UNIX like OSes will. Linux is already a mess in this respect beyond anything to do with the CoC. The philosophy of UNIX is "everything is a file" and "every program should just do one thing well". systemd already destroyed that concept. It's bloated with a million lines of code (literally just breached that) and created hard dependencies across the system. It wants to do everything (besides what the kernel does itself). It's no longer behaving like a UNIX.

edit: Not all distros, but they're minor at this point.. and with things like Gnome now requiring systemd, they'll move over themselves too. Slackware is one of the few that isn't there yet, but will be (first distro I ever tried btw...).

AquinusSauce

Reading the context, what he said makes perfect sense. :roll: Maintainer basically wanted to BSOD whenever a problem happened and that's ridiculous.

I think Code of Conduct will, at bare minimum, be amended. I get the impression no one is happy with it as it stands.

I also see no indication that the meritocracy is ending. TAB aren't baby sitters. Even if the intent is to reign Torvalds in when he goes off the rails, it's not clear who would even bother. If TAB kicks someone like Torvalds off of development for whatever reason, it's going to damage the cadence updates come out. I don't see anyone doing anything to Torvalds. Someone else in his position would have to behave similarly because he effectively is the project manager.

StrayKATI'm pessimistic about the quality of software

That's what I meant.

FordGT90ConceptReading the context, what he said makes perfect sense. :roll: Maintainer basically wanted to BSOD whenever a problem happened and that's ridiculous.
.

Just ties into what I said before. It's full of people and things who don't even think like Unix developers anymore. Besides BSODs as a solution, the whole notion of systemd creates a single point of failure. No more turning processes on and off on the fly without breaking things. Welcome to rebooting every time you upgrade even a minor component (drivers, acpi, etc). The developer of it originally made it for his laptop and admitted himself he has no experience with servers. Yet Linux as a whole adopted it.

...And if I wanted all that, I'm happier with Windows... the ecosystem is inarguably better.

edit: Also welcome to the Linux equivalent of a "registry"... where a single binary file handles configuration.

StrayKATWelcome to rebooting every time you upgrade even a minor component (drivers, acpi, etc).

Have you ever used systemd? I have a gentoo machine running it that hasn't hard rebooted in over 4 months...

R-T-BHave you ever used systemd? I have a gentoo machine running it that hasn't hard rebooted in over 4 months...

My Raspbian/Pi has it.. but I don't use it like a desktop or "real" work computer. It just does one thing... runs games emulators.

It's good for plebian use. :p But in that case, I'm better off with Windows.

edit: I mean, the whole point of Linux was control. And it's slowly getting out of people's hands.... in more ways than one.

R-T-BHave you ever used systemd? I have a gentoo machine running it that hasn't hard rebooted in over 4 months...

At my last job we had a RHEL box that had an uptime of just shy of 1000 days before we moved the database to a different machine.

StrayKATedit: Also welcome to the Linux equivalent of a "registry"... where a single binary file handles configuration.

Could you explain that a little bit? Last time I checked /etc was full of configurations for various things that are typically in some textual format you can edit and not a binary format only readable or writable by whatever is using it. Do you mean things like kernel options provided at boot time? You know, things that can't be changed once the machine is running? I'll admit that not every config in /etc is going to be the same but, if you look in the Windows registry, there is wide variation between applications and I'm not convinced that one is better than the other.

To me, I prefer something like /etc because I can choose what my configuration files for an application I'm developing will look like. If I'm writing a Clojure application I can have far more expressive configs using EDN as I get primitives for things like sets, regex strings, dates, and UUIDs forget how it maps directly to the language without any translation.

StrayKATedit: I mean, the whole point of Linux was control. And it's slowly getting out of people's hands.... in more ways than one.

Can you explain that as well? Last time I checked I can pull the kernel source and look at everything inside of it, short of any BLOBs for proprietary code such as firmware or closed-source drivers (like nVIdia's only real driver or AMD's AMDGPU-Pro driver.) All in all, it's far more open than a lot of other options out there so, I'm not sure what you mean by not having control. I've never felt like I don't have control in Linux. Just saying.

ValantarSo, equal opportunity does not mean equal opportunity?

I have done my best not to move the thread like this but let me issue a final remark on it:

Equal Opportunity = Equal Opportunity to move up. Forget about starting point because it is impossible to guarantee that everyone starts at the same position unless we get into 1984ish type circumstances. Forget about ending point because that is equal outcome. Equal opportunity simply means that everyone has the opportunity to move up.

AquinusCan you explain that as well? Last time I checked I can pull the kernel source and look at everything inside of it, short of any BLOBs for proprietary code such as firmware or closed-source drivers (like nVIdia's only real driver or AMD's AMDGPU-Pro driver.) All in all, it's far more open than a lot of other options out there so, I'm not sure what you mean by not having control. I've never felt like I don't have control in Linux. Just saying.

YOu can also supply your own non-systemd init system. Gentoo allows this.

AquinusDo you mean things like kernel options provided at boot time? You know, things that can't be changed once the machine is running?

Sorry, it's the logging that is binary (apparently prone to corruption too. And has some paranoid - You can suppress information in binary.). It's still bloated though in the sense that it's doing more than startup services now and becoming a single point of control. Everything from userspace stuff like GNOME to xfce to file system management to power management events is run by systemd now (and even then, the options are limited to what you used to be able to do through simple scripts. This is both good and bad, I guess. The average desktop user would like everything dumbed down... or not even worth looking at).

R-T-BYOu can also supply your own non-systemd init system. Gentoo allows this.

What does that matter when more and more software is creating dependencies on it?

StrayKATSorry, it's the logging that is binary (apparently prone to corruption too. And has some paranoid - You can suppress information in binary.).

The logs themselves? They're not binary either and once again, just like /etc, you can provide it in any format you want (raw text is normal,) as they're just files that typically live in /var/log. Any service can choose what to write to /var/log and how it wants to write it. You're making no sense with your statements, man.

StrayKATIt's still bloated though in the sense that it's doing more than startup services now and becoming a single point of control. Everything from userspace stuff like GNOME to xfce to file system management to power management events is run by systemd now (and even then, the options are limited to what you used to be able to do through simple scripts.

You don't even need to use systemd if you don't like it. How about upstart? Once again, there are options if you have a particular problem that needs to be solved. Also, I find that starting Gnome uses less resources than starting Windows or starting OS X. I wouldn't call that bloated.

StrayKATThe average desktop user would like everything dumbed down... or not even worth looking at).

Gnome is pretty simple... I'm not sure how much more simple you could make it.

StrayKATWhat does that matter when more and more software is creating dependencies on it?

You're always going to have dependencies. Part of the dev process is, you know, choosing what you want to use. That's kind of important and for a lot of applications, it won't really matter how your service gets started. As far as your application cares, it could be started with nohup. Your application shouldn't care if it's being managed by upstart, systemd, monit, or whatever you choose to use to manage it.