Thick skin is what I call ego. It is there to keep you from feeling worthless when presented with that claim. Assholes are people who seek to make themselves feel better about themselves, they actually feel worthless, by running other people down. Having a thick skin is proof that you feel worthless because if you didn't those fools words wouldn't hurt. I know you feel worthless, that you don't know that you do, that you don't want to know that you don't want to know, but the good news is that your feelings, and feelings are what we actually believe, not our armored protestations, those feelings again, are not true. There is nothing wrong with you and there never was. you will do better in life knowing that when you feel hurt by words from other people, it is an ancient hurt that happened in childhood and which, in order to survive, you had to believe are true even though they are lies. The war is over and you no longer need a protective shell. Just know that what we went through has left us full of rage. Do what you can to let go of it.
What is wrong with having a strong ego that is not overbearing, and just how would you know if I feel worthless or not?
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,415
- 14,305
- 136
Are you claiming you made that point by replying to the post where I was making that point?
You need to get a life, guy. And probably a job too.
For one thing what I believe you mean by a strong ego is not a healthy ego. A healthy ego is honest, open, and innocent of guile. My knowledge is based on two things, personal contact with what I feel and the awareness that we are all the same.
DrMrLordX
Lifer
- Apr 27, 2000
- 21,634
- 10,852
- 136
Oh good grief.
Stop trying to fix broken people. Muzzle them if necessary. But throwing them out of the dev community because they need a time-out in the romper room is stupid.
Remember we are talking about an FOSS project. This is only work for people that are part of corporate kernel developer teams that generally have appointed community liaisons trained specifically not to act like Torvalds or to even react to such behavior except under extreme duress. I would expect a lot of the independent coders to be complete jerks compared to what is acceptable under some corporate code of conduct. FOSS has been and will continue to be filled with ascerbic miscreants living in some basement somewhere that can not deal effectively with others. Why do you think they spend so much of their free time writing code for an OS kernel for crying out loud? When nobody even pays them to do it?
I feel fortunate that they choose to write that code (when it works) since it gives me a useful OS for which I need pay nothing on occasions when I need to use it. More or less. Take them out of the picture and the only ones left on the scene will be the corporate contributors. Nobody else will step up to fill those shoes that I can tell. If I'm wrong, I'll be genuinely surprised.
Can we please keep him out of the thread? Please?
Then kill it.
Find every aggrieved would-be Linux kernel coder, fork the kernel, and outpace the "brogrammers" that allegedly need to change.
Stop trying to make the "brogrammers" act nicely or be nice people. They aren't nice, they don't really like <insertnameofaggreivedpartyhere>, and trying to make them sign on to a code of conduct is counterproductive. You can probably get more done by telling them to shut the hell up and write better code. Actually making them behave nicely is a complete waste of time.
I'm not trying to fix broken people, they get to fix themselves or else they have to find a new sandbox to play in.
Feel free to start your FOSS project with your own code of conduct that says "anything goes". The position that we have to tolerate horrible behavior to get good software is just bunk.
You talked about people learning, so it was reasonable to think you were saying they needed to fix themselves.
I'm still not sure why you are focusing on the part about people not being so shitty, which while there, is not the only thing.
I am sorry but for me the parallels between this Linux thingi and our political divisions are too obvious to overlook and any understanding of one has relevance, in my opinion, and could be important to the understanding the other. I am a seeker of such understanding.
I dont agree with your interpretation of the change, and merit systems only work if a diverse group of voices and oppinions came up with the system in the first place. Otherwise, old boys club.
Looking at the replies from the other thread, and other comments about this online, gives the strong impression of people in ivory towers trying to protect their sacred ground. Look at this piece of garbage from some snowflake at Techpowerup:
Employee-activism is the new unionism. Whereas trade-unions of the old fought for tangible bread-and-butter issues affecting blue-collar folk of the early Industrial era, today's employee-activist is an intellectual predator seeking to maximize their organizational footprint on the backs of other people echoing their political ideas, often through blatant insubordination and disregard for the chain of command. Survival of the fittest has changed to "survival of the loudest." From forcing Linus Torvalds to apologize for speaking his mind in public, to coming up with a new Code of Conduct document, social-justice activism within the Linux Foundation threatens to devolve the culture of meritocracy to a toxic "safe space" prioritizing inclusion of identity rather than skill, as HardOCP comments. A major blow-back from the meritocrats is taking shape.
The so called "meritocrats" are white, male, and straight, and apparently having inclusive policies that encourage diversity is somehow a threat not only to these holy men in charge, but all the amazing software they have created over the years will crumble to dust because "inferior" programmers will now pollute their sanctified ground.
Please. Much ado about nothing from the cult of Linus.
Strength comes from many voices being heard, and understand that all systems are biased, and we must continously work to overcome that bias.
Do you believe meritocratic principles create greater inequality for marginalized people?
Take note of the last part you quoted. You can believe if you wish that its all about people trying to protect their social group of being ass-holes. I would even agree that is probably true to an extent. What I don't get is why you would need to then base your COC on a set of ideas that says meritocratic principles are inherently bad. You can set standards for how people should act towards each other, and do not need to change how code is judged. Further, given that its explicitly stated, I don't get why people would ignore the move away from a merit system. Because, when I see this..."People with “merit” are often excused for their bad behavior in public spaces based on the value of their technical contributions.", it says to me that they want better people over better code. If the issue is people, set standards for people and not code.
Rebel_L
Senior member
- Nov 9, 2009
- 449
- 61
- 91
This is the big strawman you have been deftly fighting all thread. No one said they were bad, simply that meritocratic systems arent perfect.
Answer me honestly, have you looked at any of the documents and or links provided in the COC?
Contributor Covenant (https://www.contributor-covenant.org/) says this "(For more critical analysis of meritocracy, refer to this entry on the Geek Feminism wiki.)"
That links takes to you this.
http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Meritocracy
Under the "Research" section it says this.
"Research
The journal article "The Paradox of Meritocracy in Organizations" empirically confirms the hypothesis that an organizational culture which promotes meritocracy results in greater inequality."
So, if the goal stated is greater equality, and the thing causing inequality is the meritocracy, what can you logically conclude their goal is?
Then, look at the links in the Criticisms section and you find the following link and a purposed solution.
https://geekfeminism.org/2009/11/29/questioning-the-merit-of-meritocracy/
"First up, I’d like to see projects expand the definition of merit. A pure “meritocracy” based on coding skill will lead to crappy documentation, ugly UIs, and poor community dynamics. Watch How Open Source Projects Survive Poisonous People and consider whether a poisonous person who writes good code has merit or not. Then consider any steps to seniority or leadership that are based on “merit”. Do you judge nothing but code, or do you also include other skills, including “plays well with others”, in your reviews of people’s merit?"
And there you have it, literally calling for judging things beyond just the code. Still not sure? How about this just a bit further down?
"Don’t expect people to come in with a high level of skill and ability from day one, and be prepared to accept contributions that are less than perfect."
That is right, literally saying accept contributions that are less than perfect. So, where is the straw?
DrMrLordX
Lifer
- Apr 27, 2000
- 21,634
- 10,852
- 136
Of course you are. But @realibrad has already articulated that point.
Why? Some of the people "under attack" here are founding members of the Linux development community. What you are suggesting is the equivalent of going into some kid's backyard, kicking him and his friends out of their treehouse for poor behavior, moving a bunch of other kids into the treehouse, and then forcing the obnoxious ones to build YET ANOTHER treehouse for themselves. Who is to say the second house won't come under attack eventually?
If the most-prolific (and, in some cases, most obnoxious) individual contributors to the Linux kernel fork the kernel and go their own way, it's only a matter of time before THAT new FOSS community comes under attack by yet another group insisting that they follow a code of conduct. The process will repeat itself until these people take up a new hobby or otherwise disappear from the FOSS world completely.
The position that you can control people's behavior in some FOSS project because you feel like it is just bunk. It isn't a corporate boardroom. It isn't government. You didn't vote for these people, nor do you pay their salaries. Linux started out as a hobby project for crying out loud. Now that a bunch of Fortune 500 companies rely on the Linux kernel to do business, you (or someone else) get to go in and "fix" a bunch of people's behavior or throw them out? Of an FOSS project? No! That's not how it works.
I should point out that, interestingly enough, many FOSS developers (including some of the most obnoxious ones) are politically very liberal. There are very few conservative "nationalists" involved in FOSS development. It's also useful to note that some of these less-than-charming FOSS developers are actually good at doing a few things (such as writing code in C and other hard-to-use languages) whereas our glorious President is good at basically nothing other than taking people's money. Which I guess is a skill, of a sort.
Regardless, I fail to see the parallels. Our current political divisions are stoked by the ceaseless conflict over a Federal government that controls trillions of dollars a year in spending (and an enormous amount of debt, too). Any other consideration is a red herring. In contrast, Linux development is essentially the world's largest hobby project. It's not like anyone voted on who should be able to submit code to the project. Nobody hired the developers (except for the corporate development teams, though they contribute on the same basis as the independent contributors). It's a very big, very popular hobby. There's this weird, overriding assumption that because Linux has become popular, that we ought to carefully curate who is or is not involved with the project. No? No. Definitely not. Get your own hobby. Leave the Aspies alone.
I have no problem with you expressing your opinion but the fact that you don’t see the parallels, I hope you don’t think should alter the fact that I do. I mentioned Trump because I see them and I mentioned that fact not to prove the validity of my vision but to explain why I mentioned him.
Your comment on hobbies makes no sense to me as I am not in search of one more wish anybody else have or not have one. I feel also that I’m not after anybody. My opinion on the tone of your post is that you are angrily fatalistic, a condition that in my personal opinion is created by lack of knowledge. You can only see what your understanding permits. I believe that humans have potential far beyond what we see in our culture.
http://sarah.thesharps.us/2015/10/05/closing-a-door/
That is what started the whole thing, dunno if it has been posted before.
That is what started the whole thing, dunno if it has been posted before.
Actually, this is now mostly a corporate project and as people who work in corporate environments already have a code of conduct this is mainly spreading it throughout the entire line of devs.
High level devs have left over the crap they have gotten (and no, I can't repeat it here since I would get banned if I used those words) spewed at them for no reason what so ever and that isn't the way to move forward.
Linux is today a project that drives all android phones, the backbone of the internet and a great deal of workstations/local servers. It's not some FLOSS hobby project anymore and as professionals are engaging in the process they expect professionalism in both coding and behavior.
As a dev I support the new CoC.
First post is all reasonable. Her 2nd post where she outlines what she thinks as a solution has some problems.
Level 4
- Focuses on non-technical issues, including in-person discussions of cultural or political issues with a clear follow-up from leaders
Level 5
- Diversity is not just a PR campaign – developers truly seek out different perspectives and try to understand their own privilege
- Conferences include child care, clearly labeled veggie and non-veggie foods, and a clear event policy
- Code of conduct explicitly protects diverse developers, acknowledging the spectrum of privilege
You should at the very least note that this information is from another post of hers and not from the one linked to.
These are her ideas (she's not involved anymore) on the matter of how to run a prospective dev environment but it's not related to the kernel and therefore largely (especially since it's not in the CoC and she isn't even involved in the discussion of the CoC or the LMKL anymore) irrelevant in this discussion.
The point was that she made the post which started this as she left LKML and her position in the dev community. That is the important part.
First, I did note that when I said I did not have a problem with her first post. I then said it was her 2nd post that I thought was a problem. If you read her post, you will notice 2 edits at the bottom, and one links to the second post.
I think her suggestions as to how to fix the community coupled with the fact she was part of it, show what she thinks is wrong.
Also, saying her opinion is irrelevant to the discussion, after you post her blog about the discussions seems incoherent. If she and her views are irrelevant, then why did you post a link to her blog? I see no reason as to why her position in the community was important, and not her views on said community.
I presented the link since it was what started this whole discussion in the LKML in the first place, so that is certainly relevant to the topic.
Nothing (NO THING for those who can't read lower case) she has to say after that has any consequence on the LKML because she is NO LONGER INVOLVED IN ANY SHAPE OR FORM with the LKML OR the DEVELOPMENT OF THE KERNEL.
Her opinion is completely irrelevant to THE TOPIC AT HAND.
There, get it now? I tried real hard to make it understandable but I'm sure you'll find something to quibble over, you ALWAYS do.
Her opinion gives insight as to the thoughts and possibly those that are in the community. Her first post was her opinion, and, her 2nd post helps illustrate what type of things she felt were a problem. That is very much relevant to the topic at hand. What a weird thing to say by you.
No, the first post was her explanation of why she left and that is relevant.
The second post is her opinion and has nothing what so ever to do with anything discussed in this thread or in the LKML. It also has nothing to do with the CoC, it is completely and fully irrelevant to any and all topics at hand since she's not part of the dev team, the LKML and she has nothing to do with the CoC either.
I'm not going to let you continue to quibble over this anymore, I've made my point clear and I won't respond to you again on this topic.
You see him as weird but his starting point post and his subsequent defense of it to you make total sense to me. The fact that you miss his point and infer points about the link being to a blog and the out to lunch implications you read into that tell me that the weirdness here is all your own. You seem almost incapable of understanding other people.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
Facebook
Twitter