Editorial Linux Community Hit by the Blight of Social Justice Warfare, A Great Purge is Coming

[mtcn77]

Ultimately, I think you're right (about Democracy). But I think the average person doesn't look at the consequence of certain trains of thought... Maybe they need a wake up call.

Then again, I could be wrong. Maybe there's more of them than I think. Look at the French Revolution. The whole country went mad.

... and was succeeded by a republic. You rarely see riot in a republic because the appointees by definition "have to be the best tool" to do the job. It is infinitely expensive to come up with an alternative explanation to things that work by nature, thermodynamics state that by virtue of limited energy intake and expenditure. Those that do make it, have to be respected, otherwise the alternative solution will be more expensive, or worse, or both. Luckily we can imagine creatively devoid of that 1st rule.
PS: unrelated but as a testament to what democrats are capable of,
The ruling 'democrat' party revoked the students' amendment. It was repealed. The constitutional court decided 'those kinds of'(see the retaliatory speech?) oaths are against being a 'democracy'.
You cannot have good things in a democracy, they will be challenged and they will be abolished.

 

[StrayKAT]

... and was succeeded by a republic. You rarely see riot in a republic because the appointees by definition "have to be the best tool" to do the job. It is infinitely expensive to come up with an alternative explanation to things that work by nature, thermodynamics state that by virtue of limited energy intake and expenditure. Those that do make it, have to be respected, otherwise the alternative solution will be more expensive, or worse, or both. Luckily we can imagine creatively devoid of that 1st rule.
PS: unrelated but as a testament to what democrats are capable of,
The ruling 'democrat' party revoked the students' amendment. It was repealed. The constitutional court decided 'those kinds of'(see the retaliatory speech?) oaths are against being a 'democracy'.
You cannot have good things in a democracy, they will be challenged and they will be abolished.

Well, I'll take a Republic over Democracy too, but I'm actually a closet monarchist

Not sure how to tie this back to Linux.

 

[Valantar]

Well, I'll take a Republic over Democracy too, but I'm actually a closet monarchist

Not sure how to tie this back to Linux.

Actually, it would seem to tie quite directly into the idea/"plan" of a "coup" against Torvalds (which he somehow seems to kind of support himself). Should Linux be a monarchy, representative democracy, or anarchy? Are there sufficient checks and balances in place? Do corporations get a vote?

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Meritocracy: control is delegated to those that have contributed the best code. There's resistance to new ideas but that in itself promotes stability of the software.

Monarchy: corporations would definitely seize control and it would become increasingly closed-source as corporate code is integrated (e.g. HEVC decoders that require third party licensing).

Democracy: what people want and what people need rarely align. Would lead to Linux becoming a bloated mess no one wants.

Anarch: Linux wouldn't even compile.

I think it's obvious which social structure best fits programming of all kind (meritocracy). The only thing that may come close is control determined by stake but who has the most stake in Linux's future? Corporations (especially Google), which translates to oligarchy. I would go with meritocracy before oligarchy.

 

[StrayKAT]

Actually, it would seem to tie quite directly into the idea/"plan" of a "coup" against Torvalds (which he somehow seems to kind of support himself). Should Linux be a monarchy, representative democracy, or anarchy? Are there sufficient checks and balances in place? Do corporations get a vote?

If it was possible, sure, I'd argue for a monarch or sole visionary.. but that ship has already sailed with Linux. I don't think it's quite anarchic either though. As potentially open as it is, few want to depart from accepted practices too much. Look what I was saying about systemd earlier. Even though there are other options, for some reason most distros are converging around it. edit: The same developer of systemd also made PulseAudio.. which also seems pretty standard now.

In a way though, there is a lot of corporate push behind this. He works for Red Hat.. and it's pushed by Red Hat.

 

[Valantar]

Meritocracy: control is delegated to those that have contributed the best code. There's resistance to new ideas but that in itself promotes stability of the software.

This assumes that leadership ability and coding ability are linked, which is ... quite far-fetched. That you're able to write good code does not mean you're well-suited to deciding the direction of all future development.

Monarchy: corporations would definitely seize control and it would become increasingly closed-source as corporate code is integrated (e.g. HEVC decoders that require third party licensing).

I don't know what you're describing here, but it isn't a monarchy. Oligarchy, perhaps? Monarchy would be Torvalds (or anyone, really) having absolute power over anything Linux-related with "heritable" succession (i.e. he chooses his own successor) and no real say for anyone else.

Democracy: what people want and what people need rarely align. Would lead to Linux becoming a bloated mess no one wants.

True up to a point. In this case, where likely 99% of the people involved with Linux development represent corporations, any straight-forward democracy would be problematic.

Anarch: Linux wouldn't even compile.

One could argue that the current model where anyone can submit code is a basic form of anarchy, though of course the need for having the code validated by someone makes it a very weak form of it.

I think it's obvious which social structure best fits programming of all kind (meritocracy). The only thing that may come close is control determined by stake but who has the most stake in Linux's future? Corporations (especially Google), which translates to oligarchy. I would go with meritocracy before oligarchy.

There's no such thing as a pure meritocracy, and as shown above, you're equating merit in one field with merit in another, with no obvious link between the two. Besides, "meritocracy" isn't anything near a formalized structure, meaning that it's vulnerable to misuse. Rules for transferring power and succession are necessary. While I'm not intimately familiar with the structures of the Linux Foundation, I'd imagine some sort of representative democracy where corporate/for-profit actors and interests are limited to a certain amount of representatives would make sense. There is also a strong argument to be made for the "sole visionary" monarchistic approach, but as Torvalds' apparent declining interest in taking part in the actual management seems to exemplify, that's not a stable, long-term solution - not to mention quite fundamentally opposed to the ideological foundation of Linux as "free" and "open".

 

[StrayKAT]

This assumes that leadership ability and coding ability are linked, which is ... quite far-fetched. That you're able to write good code does not mean you're well-suited to deciding the direction of all future development.

Well, that's definitely true. Steve Jobs easily stands out here. He wasn't much of a coder.. yet he started not only Apple, but NeXT and Pixar. But he was apparently difficult too. So that didn't hamper his leadership either.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

I don't know what you're describing here, but it isn't a monarchy. Oligarchy, perhaps? Monarchy would be Torvalds (or anyone, really) having absolute power over anything Linux-related with "heritable" succession (i.e. he chooses his own successor) and no real say for anyone else.

In the maintainership summit discussions about succession, Torvalds himself said that ship has sailed. There's too many moving parts and too many vested interests for one person to lord over everything. We're talking hundreds of emails on a daily basis and that will only grow as Linux does. It's information overload for one person. That said, you do need an overarching project manager that compiles the release candidates. Right now that's Torvalds. If Torvalds stepped down, Greg Kroah-Hartman would no doubt replace him (presently is).


A republic may be best. TAB as Senate (long term interest), maintainers as House (short term interest), Torvalds is President (project manager), and an external body of arbiters as the Supreme Court (addressing conflict and ethics that makes recommendations if the matter can't be resolved). TAB puts names forward for replacing project manager and maintainers vote on it. Maintainers can likewise vote to force TAB to put someone else forward (impeach current project manager).

It could also take a corporate structure where subsystem managers are the board, project manager is CEO, and maintainers contribute under one or more subsystem managers.

Well, that's definitely true. Steve Jobs easily stands out here. He wasn't much of a coder.. yet he started not only Apple, but NeXT and Pixar. But he was apparently difficult too. So that didn't hamper his leadership either.

Pixar was a computer division of Lucas Films which Apple invested in allowing it to become an independent company.

 

[GoldenX]

I don't wanna go to BSD... it's in an even greener state than Linux!

 

[StrayKAT]

In the maintainership summit discussions about succession, Torvalds himself said that ship has sailed. There's too many moving parts and too many vested interests for one person to lord over everything. We're talking hundreds of emails on a daily basis and that will only grow as Linux does. It's information overload for one person. That said, you do need an overarching project manager that compiles the release candidates. Right now that's Torvalds. If Torvalds stepped down, Greg Kroah-Hartman would no doubt replace him (presently is).


A republic may be best. TAB as Senate (long term interest), maintainers as House (short term interest), Torvalds is President (project manager), and an external body of arbiters as the Supreme Court (addressing conflict and ethics that makes recommendations if the matter can't be resolved). TAB puts names forward for replacing project manager and maintainers vote on it. Maintainers can likewise vote to force TAB to put someone else forward (impeach current project manager).

It could also take a corporate structure where subsystem managers are the board, project manager is CEO, and maintainers contribute under one or more subsystem managers.



Pixar was a computer division of Lucas Films which Apple invested in allowing it to become an independent company.

My bad then. He owned a lot of it though.. but I still think what I said somewhat applies. He had an eye for talent and in the case of NeXT and Apple especially, nurturing that talent.

I don't wanna go to BSD... it's in an even greener state than Linux!

Talking about Nextstep makes me just want to see that again. GNU Hurd was supposed to be similar, but it's vaporware (going on 30 years ). edit: Not vaporware exactly.. but not what it could be.

 

[Valantar]

Well, that's definitely true. Steve Jobs easily stands out here. He wasn't much of a coder.. yet he started not only Apple, but NeXT and Pixar. But he was apparently difficult too. So that didn't hamper his leadership either.

Yep, Jobs had definite large-scale leadership talent and some visionary qualities that few have - but as you say, his interpersonal skills were reportedly ... nonexistent. This can work, given the correct circumstances, but is almost solely the case in start-ups and small companies. There's also a case to be made that a theoretical version of Jobs that had better people skills/wasn't a semi-dictatorial leader could have done even better, though that's of course extremely difficult to hypothesize.

A republic may be best. TAB as Senate (long term interest), maintainers as House (short term interest), Torvalds is President (project manager), and an external body of arbiters as the Supreme Court (addressing conflict and ethics that makes recommendations if the matter can't be resolved). TAB puts names forward for replacing project manager and maintainers vote on it. Maintainers can likewise vote to force TAB to put someone else forward (impeach current project manager).

It could also take a corporate structure where subsystem managers are the board, project manager is CEO, and maintainers contribute under one or more subsystem managers.

I think you're right about the former. As for the latter, corporate systems have too few checks on power, making them essentially a particular form of oligarchy. This "works" in the for-profit business world (until it doesn't), but it'd be a bad fit for something like developing the fundamental software for the computer infrastructure of the world (as specific interests would likely skew development towards their own goals rather than more universally applicable developments).

 

[antiseptic]

Nothing worse than a sausage fest of upset, entitled, elitist nerds...

Who? Like you? You can go around cursing at people all t he time because you disagree with how they do things. Just because you're a sensitive snowflake who can't take it is of little consequence.

 

[TheLostSwede]

Who? Like you? You can go around cursing at people all t he time because you disagree with how they do things. Just because you're a sensitive snowflake who can't take it is of little consequence.

You joined the forums just to post this? I'm really flattered. I don't know why you felt touched by my comment though, I guess you must be a Linux developer?

 

[lexluthermiester]

There was nothing ever technical about the thread anyway. It has been political from start to now.

You need to reread. While this tread has been very political, there are very valid discussions concerning the effect the new CoC is and will have on the technology world as a whole.

 

[mtcn77]

It cannot take a corporate structure, that would be the same as a bureaucracy posing as a technocracy, a.k.a. what Intel has right now(HR as the spokesperson for everybody).

 

[moproblems99]

You need to reread. While this tread has been very political, there are very valid discussions concerning the effect the new CoC is and will have on the technology world as a whole.

I have read every post. But saying this had to do with tech is like saying arguing about who is better AMD vs nVidia is discussing technical aspects of GPUs

 

[StrayKAT]

I have read every post. But saying this had to do with tech is like saying arguing about who is better AMD vs nVidia is discussing technical aspects of GPUs

These people will make everything about politics. They started it

Seriously.. it's the hallmark of Critical Theory. Instead of Marxism turning it's eye on labor and economy, Critical Theorists see the fundamental problems of society most of all in the realms of media and social influence... and calls to infiltrate them all. They attack any structure that "props up opressors".. It could be College, it could be Tech, it could be Comic books and Star Wars, it could be TV Sitcoms, it could be Apple Pie. Nothing is safe. Everything is suddenly political and a symbol of an accursed world that needs to live up to higher ideals.

In one sense, I actually agree with them. I, in fact, do think the world is accursed and favors injustice. I just don't think they have the solution. I also don't care to change society as drastically or as quickly as they do. If people want to be accursed, so be it. Outside of pedophilia, I'm not going to fight it too much. But if people want to be left alone from SJWs, my advice is to put your foot down immediately... and be happy with being hated for it. Once they get their foot in, you'll soon cease to recognize what it is you valued.

 

[Aquinus]

I don't think it will change anything TBH. If anything, all we'll get is a passive aggressive Linus but, he'll still shoot down garbage PRs if someone does something stupid.

This thread is a mountain when it really should just be a mole hill.

 

[moproblems99]

Once they get their foot in, you'll soon cease to recognize what it is you valued.

They'll fuck up the kernel no more than once before it will go back to the way it was.

 

[StrayKAT]

They'll fuck up the kernel no more than once before it will go back to the way it was.

We'll see, I guess. The task of actually changing the "culture" surrounding open source would be less apparent and more difficult than.. say... the tone of a Captain America comic or late night talk shows. The messaging there is all superficial and upfront as it is. With programming, this is abstract and more niche. But enough in the know - and who it really affects - will be able to spot differences, I bet.

 

[lexluthermiester]

I have read every post. But saying this had to do with tech is like saying arguing about who is better AMD vs nVidia is discussing technical aspects of GPUs

Hey, if you don't see it, you don't see it. That's problem for no one else.

 

[R-T-B]

You need to reread. While this tread has been very political, there are very valid discussions concerning the effect the new CoC is and will have on the technology world as a whole.

All I have seen is unbacked theory on it's POTENTIAL impact honestly.

Hey, if you don't see it, you don't see it. That's problem for no one else.

I mean, it may have to do with tech, but only vaguely and the link is weak at best, IMO.

This thread is a mountain when it really should just be a mole hill.

Yep, called it that before this thread, was a thread.

 

[lexluthermiester]

All I have seen is unbacked theory on it's POTENTIAL impact honestly.

Give it time.

I mean, it may have to do with tech, but only vaguely and the link is weak at best, IMO.

This will have effect on the entire world as most of it runs on Linux variants. The effect might be slow at first.

 

[R-T-B]

Give it time.

I mean, that's what I'm advocating everyone do. And you know my bet, or should. Maybe I wasn't noisy enough.

 

[StrayKAT]

All you have to do is read the CoC founder, as far goals go. They want a complete paradigm shift. Don't miss the forest for the trees and get distracted by this or that particular issue. The only thing imaginary is from people living in denial of it.

https://postmeritocracy.org/