As 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?
Who 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.
None 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.
Question: 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.
Uh? 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".
Linux 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.
Well, 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.
I 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.
You cannot disprove something without prior examination.
You 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.
