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

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
It feels like the power situation is flipped though.

This is a crowd of random nerds vs google. I feel if they started sending out C&D's, google'd settle this definitively, quickly, one way or another.
But the question (at lease for me) is:
Just the idea of these people saying they will pull their code to poison the well so coperations and desktop users are less likely to use it over OpenBSD or illumos. (assuming software/hardware compatibility)

Is google at the point where it really cares? Google seems to be working on another OS independent of Linux called Fuchsia for devices including phones and sub note books.
 
But the question (at lease for me) is:
Just the idea of these people saying they will pull their code to poison the well so coperations and desktop users are less likely to use it over OpenBSD or illumos.

Is google at the point where it really cares? Google seems to be working on another OS independent of Linux called Fuchsia for devices including phones and sub note books.
No one gives a shit about desktop users. There's no money in linux for the desktop.

Corporations make heavy, heavy use of linux on servers and that's what they'll care about.

Google might be working on a new OS, but that's going to be years in the future. There's shitloads of code on android. They can't risk a crisis right now.
 
But the question (at lease for me) is:
Just the idea of these people saying they will pull their code to poison the well so coperations and desktop users are less likely to use it over OpenBSD or illumos. (assuming software/hardware compatibility)

I don't see enough important people doing this to wreck the project, because unlike the cancer, they actually care about the project.

I could see them pulling out and no longer contributing, or moving to an entirely new project, which the cancerous troons would love. It wouldn't instantly destroy the project, but it would fairly rapidly deteriorate as it failed to keep up with developments. That would take a nucleus of important programmers, though, and that would require enough of them to care about this issue to do it.

It wouldn't be quite the nuclear option, which nobody except the cancer wants.
 
Coraline Ada needs to have a thread here, as does anyone in tech circles who openly supports her openly racist policies.
 
What if SJWs are malicious state actors trying to weaken open source software security by slowing progress and instilling doubt in open source
 
No one gives a shit about desktop users. There's no money in linux for the desktop.

Corporations make heavy, heavy use of linux on servers and that's what they'll care about.

Google might be working on a new OS, but that's going to be years in the future. There's shitloads of code on android. They can't risk a crisis right now.
There are some large companies that use Linux for their desktop users too. I am not going to powerlevel my self but I have seen it.

I don't see enough important people doing this to wreck the project, because unlike the cancer, they actually care about the project.

I could see them pulling out and no longer contributing, or moving to an entirely new project, which the cancerous troons would love. It wouldn't instantly destroy the project, but it would fairly rapidly deteriorate as it failed to keep up with developments. That would take a nucleus of important programmers, though, and that would require enough of them to care about this issue to do it.

It wouldn't be quite the nuclear option, which nobody except the cancer wants.

I agree no one wants it, but I honestly think the talks of pulling code are more of trying a hail mary power play, the devs trying to say "no we actually hold the power not you Ada".

Fuchsia won't be great for desktop use, and you likely won't want to either. But the advertising arm of Google have already won out in a bit of the decision making process around Fuchsia, Bloomberg wrote an article about it somewhat recently. Its worrying for obvious reasons.

I was more using Fuchsia to support my questions if Google really still cares about Linux/Android. I am not saying i want Fuchsia.

What if SJWs are malicious state actors trying to weaken open source software security by slowing progress and instilling doubt in open source
Its been talked about before long ago, party because most SJWs are on the communist end of the political spectrum, and yet seem to benefit greatly from large international companies. In my opinion they at the very lease are useful idiots to the powers that be, if they are not state actors.
 
Here's a news article on Linus from the BBC:
https://archive.fo/Hu9cs
Linux founder Linus Torvalds has told the BBC that he is seeking professional help to become more empathetic towards fellow developers, but admits he may have to "fake it until I make it".

Mr Torvalds stepped back from his role heading the organisation, following accusations of bullying and rudeness.

He admitted to bad behaviour but added that the Linux community also has to look at the way it conducts itself.

He told the BBC it had become "a morass of nastiness".

Mr Torvalds developed the first version of the Linux operating system while studying at the University of Helsinki, Finland in 1991.

He has always had a reputation as someone who provides blunt feedback to engineers, with expletive-laden emails, once describing an Intel fix as "complete and utter garbage".

In a TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) Talk in 2016, he spoke openly about how even as a child he was not a "people person".

The Linux kernel - the code that lets software and hardware work together - has since been through many revisions and now powers many of the world's web servers, including those of Google, PayPal, Amazon and eBay. It is also behind the two billion mobile phones using Android.

Mr Torvalds oversees every line of code added to the kernel, but in recent years the male-dominated community has become increasingly divided.

Rows about sexism and rudeness led to the creation of a Code of Conflict (CoC) in 2015 which was short - simply recommending people "be excellent to each other".

That has now been replaced by a more detailed Code of Conduct - which retains the acronym, but attempts to be more inclusive and eliminate insulting and derogatory comments and behaviour.

In an exclusive email to the BBC, Mr Torvalds shared his thoughts on his decision to temporarily step aside, the controversy behind the CoC, and the defects of the community he set up.

"So I've obviously long been on record as wanting to deal with the technical side, and not really wanting to get involved in most other discussions.

"Because technology is what I have always found interesting. People? Not my forte. Never has been, clearly. If you watched that TED talk, you'll know I wasn't a people person even as a child.

"And if you have read any of the recent stories, you will now know at least one other reason why I've wanted to stay away from that whole discussion. Because it's not just my lack of people skills. It's the discussions themselves.

"The advantage of concentrating on technology is that you can have some mostly objective measures, and some basis for agreement, and you can have a very nice and healthy community around it all. I really am motivated by the technology, but the community around Linux has been a big positive too.

"But there are very tangible and immediate common goals in any technical project like Linux, and while there is occasionally disagreement about how to solve some particular issue, there is a very real cohesive force in that common goal of improving the project.

"And even when there are disagreements, people in the end often have fairly clear and objective measures of what is better. Code that is faster, simpler, or handles more cases naturally is just objectively 'better', without people really having to argue too much about it.

"In contrast, the arguments about behaviour never seem to end up having a common goal. Except, in some sense, the argument itself.

"Have you read the Twitter feeds and other things by the people who seem to care more about the non-technical side? I think your 'hyped stories' is about as polite as you can put it. It's a morass of nastiness. Instead of a 'common goal', you end up with horrible fighting between different 'in-groups'.

"It's very polarising, and both sides love egging the other side on. It's not even a 'discussion', it's just people shouting at each other.

"That's actually the reason I for the longest time did not want to be involved with the whole CoC discussion in the first place. That whole subject seems to very easily just devolve and become unproductive. And I found a lot of the people who pushed for a CoC and criticised me for cursing to be hypocritical and pointless. I could easily point you to various tweet storms by people who criticise my 'white cis male' behaviour, while at the same time cursing more than I ever do.

"So that's my excuse for dismissing a lot of the politically correct concerns for years. I felt it wasn't worth it. Anybody who uses the words 'white cis male privilege' was simply not worth my time even talking to, I felt.

"And I'm still not apologising for my gender or the colour of my skin, or the fact that I happen to have the common sexual orientation.

"What changed? Maybe it was me, but I was also made very aware of some of the behaviour of the 'other' side in the discussion.

"Because I may have my reservations about excessive political correctness, but honestly, I absolutely do not want to be seen as being in the same camp as the low-life scum on the internet that think it's OK to be a white nationalist Nazi, and have some truly nasty misogynistic, homophobic or transphobic behaviour. And those people were complaining about too much political correctness too, and in the process just making my public stance look bad.

"And don't get me wrong, please - I'm not making excuses for some of my own rather strong language. But I do claim that it never ever was any of that kind of nastiness. I got upset with bad code, and people who made excuses for it, and used some pretty strong language in the process. Not good behaviour, but not the racist/etc claptrap some people spout.

"So in the end, my 'I really don't want to be too PC' stance simply became untenable. Partly because you definitely can find some emails from me that were simply completely unacceptable, and I need to fix that going forward. But to a large degree also because I don't want to be associated with a lot of the people who complain about excessive political correctness.

"Am I turning into some cuddly people person? I'll admit that sounds very unlikely. I still care about the technology, and I'm still not exactly the most empathetic person. But I'm hoping I can at least 'fake it until I make it'. Part of that 'faking it' is definitely going to be a filter on my outgoing emails, but as mentioned, I'm actively also trying to find a professional therapist to talk to as well.

"Will everybody be happy? No. People who don't like my blunt behaviour even when I'm not being actively nasty about it will just see that as 'look, nothing changed'. I'm trying to get rid of my outbursts, and be more polite about things, but technically wrong is still technically wrong, and I won't start accepting bad code just to make people feel better about themselves.

"But if people at least realise that I'm not part of the disgusting underbelly of the internet that thinks it's OK to show the kind of behaviour you will find if you really have been reading up on the 'discussions' about the code of conduct, then even that will be a really good thing.

"And again - the above is just my explanation of why I applied the CoC even if there is obviously discussion about it. We will have the maintainer summit in Edinburgh next month, and we'll talk about this issue a lot more.

"In the meantime, I'm taking a break from the kernel and probably shouldn't talk to journalists."
 
What if SJWs are malicious state actors trying to weaken open source software security by slowing progress and instilling doubt in open source

It wouldn't be the first time they've split opposition to the government/corporate establishment by divisively setting people at each other's throats over bullshit identity politics. By getting people fighting over the crumbs on the floor, they distract from the fat cats eating the entire pie.

I'm sure this is totally a coincidence, though. It would be paranoid to think otherwise.
 
There are some large companies that use Linux for their desktop users too. I am not going to powerlevel my self but I have seen it.
I can imagine they exist, it's just that Linus is perfectly willing to tell them "fuck off, just use OS X you retards". That's been the attitude of kernel developers for a long time.

Fuchsia won't be great for desktop use, and you likely won't want to either. But the advertising arm of Google have already won out in a bit of the decision making process around Fuchsia, Bloomberg wrote an article about it somewhat recently. Its worrying for obvious reasons.
I don't see why it's worrying. Also they seem to be aiming for use on desktops too.
 
I can imagine they exist, it's just that Linus is perfectly willing to tell them "fuck off, just use OS X you exceptional individuals". That's been the attitude of kernel developers for a long time.
It wasn't for dev/IT work, it was a large national company that didn't want to pay the licensing fees for AD/Windows outside of those who work for corporate.

The type of environment it was in wasn't one you would want OSX (or its pricey hardware) in.

As far the Fuchsia thing, I can see why advertising/marketing arm winning battles for the development of an OS is worrying, look at the shitfest that is Windows 10, ads on it even in the Pro/Enterprise version that comes back after every forced update is one big example.
 
Like I pointed out, Linus' approach in dealing with people (well, and the lessons his underlings have learned from him) have made Linux development less effective than it could be, by scaring off users and contributors.
This will probably sound worse than I mean it to but it's not like you *want* lots of random people contributing to the kernel. All it takes is one stray pointer dereference, anywhere in the codebase, to take down the whole machine. And the stakes are higher, linux is used everywhere, cars, medical equipment, industrial control. I was under the impression that Linus has kept up this whole abusive, abrasive persona specifically to scare bad developers away on purpose.

Linux will still be king of servers, king of the cell phone market / tablet / shitty google laptop market as android, and the much smaller group of people who use it everyday, like myself, will get somewhat fucked.
I agree unfortunately. Regardless of what happens, desktop users are probably the only ones who will get hurt.

What if SJWs are malicious state actors trying to weaken open source software security by slowing progress and instilling doubt in open source
I don't buy that because Linux has never been a particularly secure OS. Linus simply does not give a shit about security. If they manage to infect OpenBSD or HardenedBSD then you might be onto something though.
 
This will probably sound worse than I mean it to but it's not like you *want* lots of random people contributing to the kernel. All it takes is one stray pointer dereference, anywhere in the codebase, to take down the whole machine. And the stakes are higher, linux is used everywhere, cars, medical equipment, industrial control. I was under the impression that Linus has kept up this whole abusive, abrasive persona specifically to scare bad developers away on purpose.
You want a lot of randos contributing to the kernel to maintain all the obscure hardware that like three people use. But yeah, you also want people screeching at them to avoid losing pointers and things like that.

Like I had a rambling (not sure if I posted it) about how I'm pumped to build a NAS box using FreeNAS (freebsd based). I also have a tv tuner that I'd like to toss somewhere to scrape broadcast TV (I'd grab cable tv if those cocksuckers at comcast didn't start encrypting basic cable), but I can't do them in the same box because BSD doesn't have the drivers.
 
I like Linus' letter, it's even handed and I can agree with it mostly. I start to get the feeling they just picked a CoC without looking much into who the person behind it is or even the CoC itself. I mean on the surface it sounds ok, if you don't think too long about it. I think everything will be fine. I also agree that there are certainly also far-right people who are just as insane and stupid as the far-left people. It really is sometimes just about extremists yelling at each other over nonsense.
 
I don't see why it's worrying. Also they seem to be aiming for use on desktops too.

If Google's advertising team is overruling their security team on core decisions I'm not entirely sure its a smart idea to make lots of use of it. I mean, Google already collect mountains of information from Android users, Microsoft do the same via Windows 10, and you can bet that will increase with Fuchsia. Especially if they're baking it in this early into development. I'm making a fair amount of assumptions here on information that's rather speculative, but its something I stand by.
 
If Google's advertising team is overruling their security team on core decisions I'm not entirely sure its a smart idea to make lots of use of it. I mean, Google already collect mountains of information from Android users, Microsoft do the same via Windows 10, and you can bet that will increase with Fuchsia. Especially if they're baking it in this early into development. I'm making a fair amount of assumptions here on information that's rather speculative, but its something I stand by.
Go look at the source code. It's fine.
 
You simply cannot trust google with anything. You have to think about this way - It's a company. The goal of a company is to make money, which includes finding more ways to make more money in the future. Why would they do anything for free? If the answer isn't covered by that or PR it's always more sinister. You as Joe Averageguy will *never* come out on top in a deal with these huge corporations. Always remember that.

Also, there's always this argument that it's open source so nobody can smuggle any nasty shit in. The truth is if the codebase is sufficiently big, difficult to parse and has a lot of movement it's easy enough to smuggle nasty shit in nobody will notice in a long time. Maybe not in super obvious ways but it doesn't have to be super obvious. Also to come back to google, IIRC Chrome downloads pre-compiled binaries and god knows what's in them or what they do. Google is fucking nasty and you should avoid it wherever possible if you give any fucks about privacy. Easier said than done but the least you can do is make their data mining a bit more difficult.

Btw. guess who's advising the American Government regarding privacy laws? Well, Google of course: https://thehill.com/policy/technology/408145-google-releases-framework-for-data-privacy-legislation - Can't make that shit up.
 
Also, there's always this argument that it's open source so nobody can smuggle any nasty shit in. The truth is if the codebase is sufficiently big, difficult to parse and has a lot of movement it's easy enough to smuggle nasty shit in nobody will notice in a long time.

Suppose everything is completely on the up and up currently. The problem isn't what's in it now but what might be in it in the future, whether there will be a sufficient base of developers to keep it updated and fix newly found flaws, and what pressure will be on those people the moment Google isn't happy about how things are going. It just seems anyone contributing to this is going to be working for Google, but without getting paid, and their shit will be shut down instantly if Google wants to monster stomp all over it.
 
Back
Top Bottom