FordGT90ConceptHe added it to the source. Motive still unknown.

I can only assume he had his reasons and we're playing speculation game in something we cannot possibly understand.

As I said before this became a thread, essentially...

Aquinus24 pages in and this is where we've arrived from the knee jerk reaction to Linus Tovald's abrasiveness.

One user insists on derailing it constantly into something about laws of thermodynamics and Ayn Rand territory. So yeah, pretty much. The topic is hopeless. I feel like a headless chicken.

R-T-BI can only assume he had his reasons and we're playing speculation game in something we cannot possibly understand.

As I said before this became a thread, essentially...



One user insists on derailing it constantly into something about laws of thermodynamics and Ayn Rand territory. So yeah, pretty much. The topic is hopeless. I feel like a headless chicken.

I still find him interesting though.. just don't know what it always has to do with this topic. Even tangentially. But since I'm a Christian, it's interesting hearing about Justinian... especially from someone in Turkey apparently.

I personally don't think Byzantine downfall had anything to do with their own leaders. It's all the West's fault. Everything is the West's fault. Except Ayn Rand. That's Russia's fault. :p

R-T-BI can only assume he had his reasons and we're playing speculation game in something we cannot possibly understand.

Well, think about it. The fact he unilaterally added something extremely controversial to the source is, in itself, a violation of the Code of Conflict. Consider that specific edit as you're reading it:

Code of ConflictThe Linux kernel development effort is a very personal process compared to “traditional” ways of developing software. Your code and ideas behind it will be carefully reviewed, often resulting in critique and criticism.[1] The review will almost always require improvements to the code before it can be included in the kernel.[2] Know that this happens because everyone involved wants to see the best possible solution for the overall success of Linux.[3] This development process has been proven to create the most robust operating system kernel ever, and we do not want to do anything to cause the quality of submission and eventual result to ever decrease.[4]

If however, anyone feels personally abused, threatened, or otherwise uncomfortable due to this process, that is not acceptable. If so, please contact the Linux Foundation’s Technical Advisory Board at <tab@lists.linux-foundation.org>, or the individual members, and they will work to resolve the issue to the best of their ability. For more information on who is on the Technical Advisory Board and what their role is, please see:

www.linuxfoundation.org/projects/linux/tab

As a reviewer of code, please strive to keep things civil and focused on the technical issues involved.[5] We are all humans, and frustrations can be high on both sides of the process. Try to keep in mind the immortal words of Bill and Ted, “Be excellent to each other.”[6]

1. There was no review.
2. No improvements were allowed.
3. It didn't happen.
4. Undeniably did decrease.
5. What's technical about the Code of Conduct?
6. At least a warning would have been nice.

The move also violates many points from the Code of Conduct:

Code of ConductGracefully accepting constructive criticism

Didn't accept any criticism.

Code of ConductFocusing on what is best for the community

Dictation is rarely best for any community.

Code of ConductShowing empathy towards other community members

He basically said "deal with it" and "vacation!"


His email makes it sound like he was harassed into changing it:

TorvaldsThis week people in our community confronted me about my lifetime of not understanding emotions.

Not allowed:

Code of ConductPublic or private harassment

Support Code of Conflict (because removed without consent of the community through which it was adopted) or Code of Conduct (because he just violated it by adopting it), everyone has grounds to be mad at Torvalds.

FordGT90ConceptAs discussed previously, "fairness" is highly contextual. In many cases, fairness is an impossibility.

That's a contradictory statement. If fairness is contextual (which it obviously is) then it's also a matter of degree (given that context implies balancing various relevant factors). Can you show me an example in which the only possibility is zero fairness?

FordGT90ConceptWho invented Linux? 'Nuff said.

Again, boilerplate authoritarianism. "He invented it, so he is and will always be the most suited person to rule over it." This is a horribly uncritical and naive approach to anything at all.

FordGT90ConceptNone of the above. The change is rejected and the project manager moves on. "New developer" gets a "deal with it" response. Linux Foundation isn't paying Torvalds to corral and train noobs. They're paying him to make the Linux Kernel better. "New developer" either keeps trying (and each submission evaluated based on merit) or stops contributing.

What you're describing here is option 2. So, definitely not "none of the above". And not an approach conducive to improving development. The best possible outcome of this appeoach is maintaining the status quo, though the risk of things going wrong is significant. There is essentially zero chance of actually making anything better with this approach. Classic poor management, and far from an optimal approach.

FordGT90ConceptQuestion: do you have any programming background? Most big applications like Linux rely on compartmentalization where individuals focus on specific areas. Example: Sarah/Sage Sharp was working on the USB3 Host Controller driver. Most of the code is isolated in that regard. The only discussion arises when there is interaction between components. Who has to iron that out right now? Torvalds. If someone doesn't do something right, it's Torvalds that has to point out. This naturally makes him the villain for people being called out. If not him, someone else has to. When you're screening hundreds, if not thousands of edits per day, someone contributing garbage is likely to make any human frustrated. Abrasiveness comes with the territory.

Again: classic poor management. If he can't do his job without resorting to verbal abuse, he needs to lower his stress levels, delegate more, and check his ego. A high workload is no excuse for being an asshole, particularly when he's in a position to alleviate this himself. If his pride and/or ego is stopping him from getting someone to share the workload (for example due to a belief that only he can do the job properly), that's immature and piss-poor leadership (at the very least, he could hire and train someone). With Linux being as massive as it is, it's rather absurd if this comes down to a single person anyhow. Not to mention that this is very risky. What happens if he gets hit by a truck tomorrow?

And no, I don't have a software background, but project management isn't that discipline specific (and I'm reasonably familiar with project development/management models stemming from the software world). Compartmentalizing in projects isn't exactly a difficult project to grasp either. Managers needing to make sure discrete parts of a project work together is quite common in many fields.

FordGT90ConceptUh? Looks like you tried to define software and...failed? Programs (which are software) have one purpose: execute. You're talking about project management which, as I discussed above, is pretty much Torvalds.

So your car is a car because its engine starts? Sorry, but that statement is pure nonsense. Your car is a car because its combination of affordances make powered transportation possible through its use. This requires it to work to be a functioning car, but working is not what makes it a car. You're mistaking means (code that will compile/execute) with ends (functioning software). The former facilitates and makes possible the latter, but is only a part of the whole. Unless, of course, you're taking about art projects or other similar "non-useful" software. I'm quite sure Linux doesn't fit that category. The code wouldn't be written unless it was there to serve a purpose beyond executing. Or are you saying people write millions of lines of code just to see if it'll run? Software is made to fulfill a purpose, do a job, be a tool, not "to execute".

FordGT90ConceptLinux is Torvalds' baby and he wants to see it grow.

Yet his management style (and management structure) is clearly not ideal for this purpose. A leader interested in making the optimal product would see this and work to rectify it. It would seem that he has, given that he chose to implement a code that lays the groundwork for avoiding harm from behaviour that he himself has a propensity towards.

mtcn77Well, greatness does not require second parties. That is what makes someone great because if your reference is someone else, you aren't: it is as simple as that. You need be over the frontier where the tide breaks, else you are an employee which, so these idiots think, is a substitute for greatness.

Classic libertarian nonsense. Denying that you're building on your experience (which includes other people, unless you were raised by wolves, I guess) is naive, not "great". Nobody exists in a vacuum, and we've all learned everything we know from other people. Greatness requires a community.

mtcn77I didn't read Aristotle. Not being too proud like some who act dismissive though in relative positions...

So when you admit ignorance it's honorable, but when I do so it's "dismissive" and "proud"? Nice double standard you've got there.

mtcn77You cannot disprove something without prior examination.

R-T-BYou can when it has literally no foundation, because there is literally nothing comprehensible to examine.
Pretty much what's going on here.

Yeah. Isn't this the whole reason why the criterion for scientific proof was changed from verifiability to falsifiability? If something can't be examined, and thus the statement can't be falsified, it is by default not a scientific statement. Dismissing it is as such not "disproving" it (as that would be impossible), but dismissing it as a valid argument in the first place. Which is sound scientific practice. I suppose you could call the process of discovering that there's nothing to examine "examination", but then you're just nit-picking.

Also, @mtcn77 , I'm still waiting for you to address any of the counterarguments leveled against you on this topic. You've conveniently led this whole charade into a quagmire of discussing whether ancient Greek philosophers were elitist (they all were; they lived in a heavily socially stratified society, one where slavery was accepted, and which was convinced of its own superiority to all other cultures, so expecting them not to be would be quite unreasonable), but this has nothing to do with the topic, and there have been plenty of counterarguments presented to you that you still haven't even come close to addressing. Frankly, I'm getting tired of you refusing to respect the other forum members here enough to actually address our concerns, so if you're at all interested in not coming off as dismissive and disrespectful I'd suggest actually treating this as a conversation, not a fight.

ValantarThat's a contradictory statement. If fairness is contextual (which it obviously is) then it's also a matter of degree (given that context implies balancing various relevant factors). Can you show me an example in which the only possibility is zero fairness?

Nature doesn't fancy fairness. Example: Down's Syndrome.

ValantarThere is essentially zero chance of actually making anything better with this approach.

Linux's version history disagrees.

ValantarYet his management style (and management structure) is clearly not ideal for this purpose. A leader interested in making the optimal product would see this and work to rectify it. It would seem that he has, given that he chose to implement a code that lays the groundwork for avoiding harm from behaviour that he himself has a propensity towards.

The fact Linux is still charging on decades later and is installed on more devices than any other operating system proves otherwise.

FordGT90ConceptNature doesn't fancy fairness. Example: Down's Syndrome.


Linux's version history disagrees.


The fact Linux is still charging on decades later and is installed on more devices than any other operating system proves otherwise.

Nope. All that shows is that the status quo is one where Linux is useful, and that it has thus far developed in useful ways. On the flip side, it has grown by many orders of magnitude in the meantime. This means that more resources need to be spent on development (to optimize for new use cases, fix the increasing number of bugs found, and all the other complications inherent with a larger user base), and more people need to be involved. At some point, likely in the near future, maintaining the status quo would have lead to serious issues, whether in terms of management, strategy, interpersonal relations, or all of the above. Instead, Torvalds has taken steps to avoid this, as any good manager should when the enterprise in question has seen a prolonged period of growth. Growth requires change. Not changing means not adapting to new conditions, which almost inevitably leads to bad things happening. Linux development now isn't what it was ten years ago, and it's regulations and norms need to reflect that.

As for fairness: I suppose you're right there. Fairness is a human concept, and thus doesn't apply outside of human culture (though evidence does exist of similar values among many animals). Still, this doesn't really apply: if the thing in question is beyond the control of human culture, fairness as a concept loses any meaning in relation to it. The existence of genetic mutations is not a moral quandary, it's a fact of life. Morals do not apply, and thus neither does fairness. I guess I should change my question: can you show me an example where human decision-making is involved where the only possible outcome is zero fairness?

ValantarNope. All that shows is that the status quo is one where Linux is useful, and that it has thus far developed in useful ways. On the flip side, it has grown by many orders of magnitude in the meantime. This means that more resources need to be spent on development (to optimize for new use cases, fix the increasing number of bugs found, and all the other complications inherent with a larger user base), and more people need to be involved. At some point, likely in the near future, maintaining the status quo would have lead to serious issues, whether in terms of management, strategy, interpersonal relations, or all of the above. Instead, Torvalds has taken steps to avoid this, as any good manager should when the enterprise in question has seen a prolonged period of growth. Growth requires change. Not changing means not adapting to new conditions, which almost inevitably leads to bad things happening. Linux development now isn't what it was ten years ago, and it's regulations and norms need to reflect that.

All good points. And very true. Linux is evolving and it's management techniques must evolve with it. However, the technological evolution of a thing must be made to benefit the technology, not the social constructs of the day.

Valantarcan you show me an example where human decision-making is involved where the only possible outcome is zero fairness?

War

ValantarNope. All that shows is that the status quo is one where Linux is useful, and that it has thus far developed in useful ways. On the flip side, it has grown by many orders of magnitude in the meantime. This means that more resources need to be spent on development (to optimize for new use cases, fix the increasing number of bugs found, and all the other complications inherent with a larger user base), and more people need to be involved. At some point, likely in the near future, maintaining the status quo would have lead to serious issues, whether in terms of management, strategy, interpersonal relations, or all of the above. Instead, Torvalds has taken steps to avoid this, as any good manager should when the enterprise in question has seen a prolonged period of growth. Growth requires change. Not changing means not adapting to new conditions, which almost inevitably leads to bad things happening. Linux development now isn't what it was ten years ago, and it's regulations and norms need to reflect that.

Except that you're forgetting Linux Kernel is limited in scope to the kernel. Most of the growth you're describing is implemented by other developers on top of the kernel (e.g. Google with Android). Kernel contributors are called "maintainers" for a reason.

If you looked through that version history website, you'd see what I am talking about. For example, there's no technical reason for 4.0 to exist: Torvalds just wanted to change it.

Valantarcan you show me an example where human decision-making is involved where the only possible outcome is zero fairness?

Bullying, dictatorships, majority mob rule, etc. Those in power do whatever they want because they answer to no one.

Which yes, Linux Kernel is that in many ways but again, it's Torvalds' baby.

lexluthermiesterAll good points. And very true. Linux is evolving and it's management techniques must evolve with it. However, the technological evolution of a thing must be made to benefit the technology, not the social constructs of the day.

That is absolutely true. From where I stand, a good set of rules ensures this, as rules should be written to be as neutral as possible. Of course, enforcement and interpretation of the rules is dependent on all manner of social context, which is why we need multiple levels of courts and the like. Debate and critique of the rules and their interpretation is a constant necessity, and the organization should not only allow for, but facilitate this.

lexluthermiesterWar

Excellent point.

FordGT90ConceptWhich yes, Linux Kernel is that in many ways but again, it's Torvalds' baby.

Yes, and all babies grow up and take on a life of their own. Linus might have recognized this and has, like any good parent would, taken a step back so the child can take it's own steps forward, metaphorically speaking of course.

By throwing it to the SJWs. Might as well have dug a grave for it himself.

FordGT90ConceptBy throwing it to the SJWs. Might as well have dug a grave for it himself.

While I agree with you that there will be serious problems ahead, this is not the end of Linux. Just another bend in the road..

What happens at the Maintainer Summit will determine if Linux has a future or not.

FordGT90ConceptWell, think about it. The fact he unilaterally added something extremely controversial to the source is, in itself, a violation of the Code of Conflict.

That has nothing to do with my question. Why the tangent? My point and only point is you can't claim to know Linus's reasons and pretending to know them is folly.

FordGT90ConceptWhat happens at the Maintainer Summit will determine if Linux has a future or not.

Ford has spoken!

Seriously, there is no way Linux is dying. Mark my words. It's way bigger than your fear of SJW's, and very very forkable. The GPL is time tested. Maybe the name will be shed, but "Linux" (as in binary compatability) is going nowhere. You guys are actually rather hilarious being this worried about this.

FordGT90ConceptFor example, there's no technical reason for 4.0 to exist: Torvalds just wanted to change it.

They stopped using technical reasons for major versions back in the 2.6 era dude.

FordGT90ConceptSupport Code of Conflict (because removed without consent of the community through which it was adopted) or Code of Conduct (because he just violated it by adopting it), everyone has grounds to be mad at Torvalds.

And one thing everyone seems to miss because I defend these things in concept (not implementation) is that I completely agree with that. I just don't think much will come of that other than the further ostracization of Torvalds, which as I said at the onset, is probably a GOOD thing for productivity globally.

Think OpenOffice versus LibreOffice. The former is corporate and stale. The latter is non-corporate and thriving. With Linux Kernel, it's even worse because one major security vulnerability that goes unpatched means distros will jump ship from it. Linux could become irrelevant in less than a year if there is a major exodus of maintainers away from it.

Who said I was worried? Certainly not me.

What was wrong with OpenOffice? I remember the first time I saw it was back when I was still in high school (it was also the first time I saw Linux PCs in the wild). Seems like a good free alternative to MS Office, which costs money.

Sun sold OpenOffice to Oracle. Most of the developers forked and continued development on LibreOffice. Oracle sold OpenOffice to Apache. Apache hasn't updated it since 2014. Even NeoOffice (Mac OS X compatible version), switched from OpenOffice to LibreOffice.

FordGT90ConceptWho said I was worried? Certainly not me.

The length of the thread and various vague statements of concern about the state of Linux's future must've fooled me... perhaps "worried" is the wrong word but there is certainly a ruckus over it. I really doubt anything will change that affects end users at all.

I'm a sucker for debate. :laugh:

TheinsanegamerNThese kinds of people have immense social pressure through crafty use of language, and people in general not wanting to be screamed at, and have their social lives smeared by, lunatics. A recent change to the way linux code is added allows a creator to redact their code from the kernel. So if someone pisses off SJWs in the coding world, they can be bullied (through threats to their career and social life typically) to remove their code from linux.

Stupid question: can Linus do this too?

HTCStupid question: can Linus do this too?

I don't think they can even do that now. I think I'm going to have to ask for a citation for that one, as nothing in the CoC argues for that where I read it (the fear is more a maintainer will decide not to include your code because of xyz equality issue). Almost all GPL'd projects I have been a part of require you to sign off rights when you commit code. I doubt Linux is any different, and short of a court order (which I have doubts can even be done unless Linux becomes some kind of monster project), you aren't getting those rights back.

That whole quotation strikes me as fearmongering.

FordGT90ConceptI'm a sucker for debate. :laugh:

I don't really like debate. I find myself doing it more and more lately when bias is transparent though, because I hate blatant attempts to sway public opinion with misleading facts or outright fabrications (not referring to you Ford, but a few here).

ValantarSo when you admit ignorance it's honorable, but when I do so it's "dismissive" and "proud"? Nice double standard you've got there.

You passed judgement on a book you didn't read. I did not on a former member of the same school of thought I have read. I merely pointed it out as an example to rule out his tutor.

ValantarYeah. Isn't this the whole reason why the criterion for scientific proof was changed from verifiability to falsifiability? If something can't be examined, and thus the statement can't be falsified, it is by default not a scientific statement. Dismissing it is as such not "disproving" it (as that would be impossible), but dismissing it as a valid argument in the first place. Which is sound scientific practice. I suppose you could call the process of discovering that there's nothing to examine "examination", but then you're just nit-picking.

Also, @mtcn77 , I'm still waiting for you to address any of the counterarguments leveled against you on this topic. You've conveniently led this whole charade into a quagmire of discussing whether ancient Greek philosophers were elitist (they all were; they lived in a heavily socially stratified society, one where slavery was accepted, and which was convinced of its own superiority to all other cultures, so expecting them not to be would be quite unreasonable), but this has nothing to do with the topic, and there have been plenty of counterarguments presented to you that you still haven't even come close to addressing. Frankly, I'm getting tired of you refusing to respect the other forum members here enough to actually address our concerns, so if you're at all interested in not coming off as dismissive and disrespectful I'd suggest actually treating this as a conversation, not a fight.

You are the epitome of dismissive subjective evaluations. Also, I never said I was in line with scientific conduct. The whole essay of scientific evidencing is construed backwards. You amplify deviation when enlarging the groupset - what scientific arbitration does does not involve singular evaluations, it only works for reducing researcher's own bias being projected onto generalizations but even then subjectivity can confound the evaluation as a loaded primary question.
Subjective evaluations should be outside the field of evidence based validation, such as you passing verdict on something without reading it in the first place. The opposing view is an exception that is observable but not replicable(fault not at evaluation since not yet disproven by examination), like my argument since you fail at doing the same examination yourself...

R-T-BI don't think they can even do that now. I think I'm going to have to ask for a citation for that one, as nothing in the CoC argues for that where I read it (the fear is more a maintainer will decide not to include your code because of xyz equality issue). Almost all GPL'd projects I have been a part of require you to sign off rights when you commit code. I doubt Linux is any different, and short of a court order (which I have doubts can even be done unless Linux becomes some kind of monster project), you aren't getting those rights back.

I was looking for the quote where a lawyer says it is possible that code submitted under GPLv2 could be copyrighted effectively barring its use in the Linux Kernel (still haven't found it but it was referenced earlier in this thread) and ran across an analysis of the kernel's authorship:
medium.com/@aserg.ufmg/who-are-the-authors-of-the-linux-kernel-f4a0b286512e

At the top, Linus Torvalds acts as a “dictator”, centralizing authorship of most of the files (after all, he did create the kernel!). Bellow him lies his hand-picked “lieutenants”, often chosen on the basis of merit. Such organization directly reflects the Linux kernel contribution dynamics, which is itself a pyramid. However, as the kernel evolves, we see that Torvalds is becoming more “benevolent”.

Torvald's contributions declined from 45% in 2.6.12 to 10% in 4.7. Torvalds, in 4.7 contributed almost as much as the next 9 did combined. 3,459 authored at least one file.

And in my search about GPLv2, apparently someone sued the Linux Foundation for "millions of Euros" worth on copyright grounds a year ago:
www.theregister.co.uk/2017/10/18/linux_kernel_community_enforcement_statement/

McHardy is a former contributor to a project called Netfilter that brings useful networking functionality such as network address translation to Linux. However the project suspended him from its core team in 2016 over “license enforcement activities” that contravened the project's own policies.

Here's what I was looking for:
lkml.org/lkml/2018/9/20/444

Contributors can, at any time, rescind the license grant regarding their property via written notice to those whom they are rescinding the grant from (regarding their property (code)) .

The GPL version 2 lacks a no-rescission clause (the GPL version 3 has such a clause: to attempt furnish defendants with an estoppel defense, the Linux Kernel is licensed under version 2, however, as are the past contributions).

When the defendants ignore the rescission and continue using the plaintiff's code, the plaintiff can sue under the copyright statute.

So not only is it possible, it has been done before.

I'm not sure how I feel about that one. If a developer takes back their contributions to a project, then that obviously hurts the project. I wouldn't want to rely on something that could be fucked over at any moment somebody decides to pull their contributions...

FordGT90ConceptSo not only is it possible, it has been done before.

By court order. Which I specifically stated.

Regardless, it would surprise the hell out of me if they don't sign-off rights at every commit. I will go and have a see.

EDIT: I see what you are saying. They sign off the rights to the GPLv2, which does not prevent rescinding rights. Ideally, GPLv3 would've dealt with this, but... it has a mess of other issues, to be frank. NVIDIA's binary drivers would be illegal under it because they have to link to the kernel, as an example. The GPLv3 is often referred to as the "viral license" because all code linking to a GPLv3 project must also be GPLv3. That's too much.

I think Linux needs a new license. And obviously that's a mess, and could get them sued as well.

But yes, we have a potential problem. I still think it will resolve itself and the interest here is very... odd. Telling, really. You should be mad about the insistence on sticking with the outdated GPLv2, not some silly CoC.

hatI'm not sure how I feel about that one. If a developer takes back their contributions to a project, then that obviously hurts the project. I wouldn't want to rely on something that could be fucked over at any moment somebody decides to pull their contributions...

Yeah. It makes me think about the entire GPLv2 licensing structure differently, really. That aspect is just plain harmful.