Diseased Open Source Software Community - it's about ethics in Code of Conducts

[Capsaicin Addict]

Trannies gonna tranny. A well-adjusted tranny is an oxymoron. You also have to consider that these already mentally ill guys have a hormon imbalance through taking estrogens, it's like giving an unstable person crazy pills. Then sometimes they hack off their junk. This is good and progressive for some reason and as you can see doesn't cause problems for anyone.

I've encountered a couple relatively well-adjusted (well, compared to me, but I'm fucking weird at times too) trans, but yeah, the majority IMO are desperately trying to find some way to identify themselves and are doing it so, so wrong.

 

[LillyTheBestGirl]

https://www.gamingonlinux.com/artic...ion-045-is-out-last-release-for-a-while.12615

It may be a bad news for users, but I'm glad people are standing up to CoCs. Hopefully they'll remember the rat king behind it.

 

[AnOminous]

OpenBSD sperging

Sounds a fair amount like FreeBSD pre-SJW bullshit and going completely off the rails. Very good and snappy at what it did, but falling far short of what you'd want in a general purpose desktop OS. FreeBSD was great for things like firewall systems, for instance, or single task systems that just did one thing, but did a lot of it.

 

[CrunkLord420]

https://www.gamingonlinux.com/artic...ion-045-is-out-last-release-for-a-while.12615

It may be a bad news for users, but I'm glad people are standing up to CoCs. Hopefully they'll remember the rat king behind it.

The GamingOnLinux community is clearly full of soyboys.

 

[altkiwi01]

It may be a bad news for users, but I'm glad people are standing up to CoCs. Hopefully they'll remember the rat king behind it.

Man, its good taking a stand like that, but the comments are pretty horrible. People just don't understand why this is a bad thing or why people are taking little stands like this.

It doesn't help that dudes like DHH put a bit of their weight behind shit like this (in this thread here and here). But to be fair DHH seems to have a relatively good hold on rails to not let stuff like this throw it out of whack (despite all the other SJW sperging that goes on in rails).

 

[stupidpieceofshit]

Man, its good taking a stand like that, but the comments are pretty horrible. People just don't understand why this is a bad thing or why people are taking little stands like this.

It doesn't help that dudes like DHH put a bit of their weight behind shit like this (in this thread here and here). But to be fair DHH seems to have a relatively good hold on rails to not let stuff like this throw it out of whack (despite all the other SJW sperging that goes on in rails).

Well when criticism that points out why the CoC that got adopted is bad (and how Ada is a bad actor) it gets deleted "for some reason" in the linux places I used to frequent. So people who don't know any better (due to either being casuals, normies, or just off doing other things) are never informed.

 

[Jaimas]

The shit has hit the fan, according to Lulz.com:

Linux developers threaten to pull “kill switch”

An open letter to the Linux Kernal Mailing List reads as follows:

Date Thu, 20 Sep 2018 09:28:14 +0000
From unconditionedwitness@redchan ...
Subject Re: A Plea to Unfuck our Codes of Conduct

Regarding those who are ejected from the Linux Kernel Community after
this CoC:

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.

Banned contributors _should_ do this (note: plaintiff is to register their copyright prior to filing suit, the copyright does not have to be
registered at the time of the violation however)

Additionally when said banned contributors joined the Linux team, they were under the impression that it was a meritocracy: in-fact this belief was stated or ratified by those within the governing body regarding Linux when the contributors began their work (whatever that body was at that time, it could have been simply Linus, or Linus and a few associates).

The remuneration for the work was implied to be, or perhaps stated, to be fame as-well as a potential increase in the contributors stature, in
addition to membership in the Linux Kernel club or association, or whatever it is that the Linux Kernel Community actually is (which a
court may determine... it is something, suffice to say).

Thusly for work, consideration was promised by (Linus? Others? There are years of mailing list archives with which to determine).

And now that consideration has been clawed-back and the contributors image has been tarnished.

Thus the worker did work, however the other side of the implied, or perhaps written (email memorandums), understanding has been violated (once the contributor has been banned under the new non-meritocratic "CoC").

Damages could be recovered under: breach of contract, quazi-contract, libel, false-light. (services rendered for the contractual claims,
future lost income for the libel claims) In addition to copyright claims. (statutory damages, profits)

For greatest effect, all rescission should be done at once in a bloc. (With other banned contributors).

Contributors: You were promised something, you laboured for that promise, and now the promise has become a lie. You have remedies
available to you now, as-well as in the close future .

Additionally, regarding those who promoted the Code of Conduct to be used against the linux kernel contributors, knowing full well the effect it would have and desiring those effects; recovery for the ejected contributors via a tortious interference claim may be possible.

A later commentator then clarifies what is meant in the above word-salad:

The Linux kernel is licensed under GPL Version 2. Under normal circumstances what this license entails is that the code can be freely copied and distributed (and also that the code must be made available with binary distributions but thats not important here). The thing that becomes confusing is that whoever authored the code still owns the actual copyright for the code they contributed. Some projects under the GPL like Emacs have a smart policy where the maintainers will not accept your code unless you also turn over complete control of the copyright. Since you own the copyright and are merely licensing it under the GPL you can technically remove that license at any time.

The GPL Ver 3 has a clause that Ver 2 lacks which dictates though that you may not rescind your license over your code. In a court, a lawyer would make the argument that since the Free Software Foundation(the license’s publisher) saw the need to add the clause, that the Ver 2 allows for rescinding of the GPL license.

I'd prefer to defer to the legal knowledge of @AnOminous or the like on this one, but it sounds like some of Linux' core coders have come upon something of a thermonuclear option.

 

[Least Concern]

Okay, this thread has drawn me out of the lurking mists.

I'm a web developer who was fairly active in the Drupal community when the Larry "Crell" Garfield stuff went down. I had actually met him a couple times at conferences, though I wouldn't have called him a friend or anything. I was, and remain, absolutely horrified by what happened to that man, but I decided to keep my mouth (mostly) shut about it at the time - partly to avoid picking a side on a polarizing issue and have it risk future career moves one way or another, and partly because I didn't want to put myself on the radar of those people, because God only knows what element of my private life which I thought I had kept reasonably firewalled from my professional life could be drug up and used against me if I pissed off the wrong people. Needless to say, it made me aware the damage that CoCs and activist leadership associations could and would do against a person, no matter how big of a cheerleader of the project they were, or how many hundreds of hours they had volunteered to it.

Nonetheless, though I'm much less active in the community than I used to be, I still use Drupal, because it works well and pays the bills. That's not to say I don't get a sour taste in my mouth when I'm reminded of what happened to Crell, but a good tool is a good tool, and if you can't separate the art from the artist, you're going to have a hard time going through life. Do you vet the records of the actors before you go to see a movie? Can you not enjoy a steak knowing that the rancher voted for that politician you hate?

So by all means, experiment with OpenBSD; at best you'll like it, and at worst you'll have learned some new things. But if you find yourself unsatisfied enough that you want to stick with Linux, you don't have to feel so guilty about it. Use the tool that gets the job done.

As for this…

Like, there still isn't a native version of docker for OS X. Which blows my mind.

Sorry to "um actually" you, but it's available via Homebrew, MacPorts, and the Docker site.

 

[stupidpieceofshit]

Okay, this thread has drawn me out of the lurking mists.
but a good tool is a good tool, and if you can't separate the art from the artist, you're going to have a hard time going through life. Do you vet the records of the actors before you go to see a movie? Can you not enjoy a steak knowing that the rancher voted for that politician you hate?

As for this…

The issue I have seen is that
1) Ada and Co. are the ones unable to separate the art from the artist
1A) The CoC that Ada writes either i)States that off site activities should still be a reason for kicking and/or ii) Have been used to (attempt) to kick people
2) When you move away from "by ability" and to "by playing the politics game/fake diversity" you scare away and force out those who made the product good (Linus was/is notorious for keeping out bad code from his kernel.

The future of Linux is now in question as the proven gate keeper of quality is gone, and more people are expected to either be forced out or just quit because the other good programmers are getting pushed off.

And for those who say "well yeah you need to be civil" it is true to a point, but when you lead a project as large as and important as Linux which is the back bone to large networks, complex medical devices, and other things, you need to make sure everything in it works as expected, this isn't just a "lets do this just for fun" thing (any more). People relay on Linux to work with out issues.

Linus needed to "scare" away people and companies who otherwise would submit bad code from doing it (and thus wasting his time), and he is known to tell large mega companies like Nvidia to fuck off because they were submitted bad code or just making it hard for their products to work with linux.

 

[Marvin]

Sorry to "um actually" you, but it's available via Homebrew, MacPorts, and the Docker site.

That's not native. It runs linux in a vm and you control it using docker-machine.

 

[AnOminous]

I'd prefer to defer to the legal knowledge of @AnOminous or the like on this one, but it sounds like some of Linux' core coders have come upon something of a thermonuclear option.

I don't know that I think much of the recission option. Usually you can't just unilaterally back out of a contract by declaring it so. You have to sue.

Second, the GPL is manifestly not a contract. It is a license. Hence the name GNU Public LICENSE.

Hence, use in violation of the terms of the license would be copyright infringement, not breach of contract.

Most of what the person in that post said is voodoo law. It has very little to do with anything that might actually happen.

However, if any large enough group of people wanted to pursue copyright litigation against basically the entire world, they'd soon be as popular as the SCO Group. So it's a sort of Samson Option, I suppose, but anyone who actually pushes that red button is very likely to be detested by the entirety of the community, even more so than the troons.

If I were going to suggest a less lawsuit bombing approach, it would probably be for a large enough group of contributors simply to go on strike and fork, and issue a modified GPL that prohibits these men from shoving their CoCs where they're not wanted.

 

[Least Concern]

The issue I have seen is that
1) Ada and Co. are the ones unable to separate the art from the artist
1A) The CoC that Ada writes either i)States that off site activities should still be a reason for kicking and/or ii) Have been used to (attempt) to kick people
2) When you move away from "by ability" and to "by playing the politics game/fake diversity" you scare away and force out those who made the product good (Linus was/is notorious for keeping out bad code from his kernel.

#1 is true, but you aren't really under direct threat from a code of conduct if you're a user, not a contributor. You may not like its effects, but I still contend it still shouldn't bar you from using a good tool. I completely agree with #2, though. I'd like to think the Drupal community is at least a little bit poorer for my lack of involvement with it, though maybe I'm giving myself too much credit.

That's not native. It runs linux in a vm and you control it using docker-machine.

Oh, that's what you meant. Well, right, but that Docker can't container-ize macOS like it can Linux is more a question of macOS than Docker, and at any rate, "container culture" is far more of a Linux-centric thing anyway - FreeBSD has jails, which probably predates Docker by a decade or two, but I don't think they're as widely used. For most of the non-Linux world, chrooting is enough.

As for Linux contributors revoking their contributions, I agree with AnOminous that it sounds like unenforceable nonsense. But there's a lot of weird things in the GPL, so who knows.

 

[stupidpieceofshit]

#1 is true, but you aren't really under direct threat from a code of conduct if you're a user, not a contributor. You may not like its effects, but I still contend it still shouldn't bar you from using a good tool. I completely agree with #2, though. I'd like to think the Drupal community is at least a little bit poorer for my lack of involvement with it, though maybe I'm giving myself too much credit.

As a user either as a (normie) daily driver or if one is an IT professional, it is essential that as an OS such as Linux be as stable as possible. Number 1 and 2 put that at risk. Sure it may not suffer immediate effects but at some point things very well could go down the shitter and especially if one is in charge of an IT department needs to be looking for alternatives that works with their business/tools ASAP so they have a back up plan just in case.

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

how many contradictions can you spot?
View attachment 547004

lol

 

[altkiwi01]

Sorry to "um actually" you

It's a "native" app, but docker on mac runs through a VM, compared to the Linux version which makes use of the host kernel. I don't do a lot with docker, but I'm guessing that results in lots of performance differences. Maybe that's what @Marvin meant??

 

[Marvin]

Oh, that's what you meant. Well, right, but that Docker can't container-ize macOS like it can Linux is more a question of macOS than Docker, and at any rate, "container culture" is far more of a Linux-centric thing anyway - FreeBSD has jails, which probably predates Docker by a decade or two, but I don't think they're as widely used. For most of the non-Linux world, chrooting is enough.

Expending the chroot concept to include things like network namespaces and users and basically the whole nine yards is extremely useful.

Being able to spin up separate mysql servers, without picking separate ports and storage locations (really avoiding the whole config rigmarole in general) is super convenient. You can go from development, to staging to production with basically the same tools. Security is pretty trivial because the network ports are never exposed publicly.

But beyond that, docker's just one example of developers taking linux stuff for granted.

It's not an intractable problem. Just saying that de-linuxifying development will involve some costs. Honestly I wish these CoC pushers weren't making it necessary.

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

Back when I first graduated college, I was going to get involved in the open source community, particularly Linux. I even got the laptop I was going to use for it all set up.

Then I got sidetracked and never bothered to do it. I made the right choice

 

[AmpleApricots]

Sounds a fair amount like FreeBSD pre-SJW bullshit and going completely off the rails. Very good and snappy at what it did, but falling far short of what you'd want in a general purpose desktop OS. FreeBSD was great for things like firewall systems, for instance, or single task systems that just did one thing, but did a lot of it.

It's actually pretty good at being customized too, when that means compiling from source and applying lots of personal coding to it, because the source base is very clean to work on, but who really has time for this..

I'd also say you could use it as a desktop. Most of the basic programs you'd want are there, if you want a minimal setup that mostly remotes into Linux boxes or Windows or whatever, then it would be good for that too. The developers made a big deal in the documentation of pointing out that they all use OpenBSD as their daily driver. Might be nice for that low-power ARM workstation that actually does the heavy stuff remotely and in other operating systems (like Linux!) but I don't know how well done their ARM branch is, seeing how these often depend on binary blobs and how many boards need a flurry of patches to the linux kernel to even boot, my uneducated guess is that the support probably sucks for everything that's not an Raspberry Pi. An older x86 box maybe, or even PPC.. but these eat a lot of power and just aren't very economical.

But enough about that. People underestimate also the influence of Corporations on the kernel, (and even the userland) because they do have a lot of influence in the way of contributors. A lot of source code is coming from corporations. If we put aside the fact that the CoC was written by an insane tranny with an agenda for a moment, you find similar diversity stuff in pretty much all silicon valley corps, which also traditionally are more liberal-leaning. You could also see it as another step of commercialization of the Linux landscape (by slowly introducing a more corporate and "professional" atmosphere) and away from that Hackers' wild west it used to be and hasn't really been for a long time. At the end of the day, all the crazy dangerhairs can screech all they want about the CoC, they don't have the public support to put pressure on anyone inside, and in the end the same maintainers that have been maintaining the linux kernel for a long time still decide who will stay and who will go. I don't think it really means all that much besides that times are changing and Linux becomes even more mainstream and commercialized. I wonder what's going on with Linus right now.

 

[altkiwi01]

I wonder what's going on with Linus right now.

I very much wonder that as well. Surely some introspection is going to be good for him (like it is for all of us), and maybe we'll see him come out of this with a fresh perspective that's actually positive for the community. But regardless, all this drama is generally not good.

 

[Rei is shit]

lol