SJW trouble at Linux

[brycejones]

Another thread where super nerds choose the oddest fucking hill to die on.

This is nothing more than essentially saying that its possible to create an environment when high quality code is produced without acting like a dick. Linux doesn't need to be run like Uber was.

 

[DrMrLordX]

This is nothing more than essentially saying that its possible to create an environment when high quality code is produced without acting like a dick.

If you actually pay attention to what @realibrad is saying, you'll see that it isn't so simple. Regardless, a code of conduct is unprecedented in most FOSS development communities. Even Mozilla isn't this goofy. So far, among the "major" projects out there, Rust is the exception. To their credit, the Rust developers are making some progress, and you can actually expect the product to be useable even if it may (or may not) be difficult to get any help from other developers. Most FOSS dev communities that have any code of conduct restrict the code to communication media such as forums or mailing lists to try to keep people with Torvalds-like attitudes under check.

Regardless, the intelligent thing to do when facing dick-like behavior is to fork and carry on. If there's some legion of beleaguered coders out there looking to improve Linux, they can band together and do their own thing. Then we'll all see what they do or don't have to offer, and if they're successful, the main kernel can always appropriate their accomplishments where they prove to be advantageous.

What appears to be happening is not an effort to open up Linux kernel development to more people; instead, it looks like they're trying to wipe out specific individuals, for no reason other than the fact that they are basically jerks. Then the plan is to replace them with other people who might not write as good code, but are more likely to be nice about it.

 

[brycejones]

If you actually pay attention to what @realibrad is saying, you'll see that it isn't so simple. Regardless, a code of conduct is unprecedented in most FOSS development communities. Even Mozilla isn't this goofy. So far, among the "major" projects out there, Rust is the exception. To their credit, the Rust developers are making some progress, and you can actually expect the product to be useable even if it may (or may not) be difficult to get any help from other developers. Most FOSS dev communities that have any code of conduct restrict the code to communication media such as forums or mailing lists to try to keep people with Torvalds-like attitudes under check.

Regardless, the intelligent thing to do when facing dick-like behavior is to fork and carry on. If there's some legion of beleaguered coders out there looking to improve Linux, they can band together and do their own thing. Then we'll all see what they do or don't have to offer, and if they're successful, the main kernel can always appropriate their accomplishments where they prove to be advantageous.

What appears to be happening is not an effort to open up Linux kernel development to more people; instead, it looks like they're trying to wipe out specific individuals, for no reason other than the fact that they are basically jerks. Then the plan is to replace them with other people who might not write as good code, but are more likely to be nice about it.

I'm very aware of what realibrad has to say and also believe he is very wrong as are you. Learn to not be a dick, deal with your behavioral issues, know where the line is in your basic interactions with your fellow humans. This isn't hard and the sky is falling bull shit from your side isn't helping your case. If you can't make your technical case as to why your code is better than someone else's on its own merits without resorting to the kind of behavior this code of conduct is intended to stop then that is a personal issue not something the rest of the world just has to accept because you're so brilliant.

 

[DigDog]

This isnt directly related to the issue, but i personally believe there is nothing legally wrong with being a dick.
I think that if you are a horrible, unreachable person you can be obstracized, people can avoid you, you canbe sidelined. You have a horrible personality so people are entitled to despise your personality.
But i do not agree that you can be fired. I solemny believe that no human should have a legal duty to be nice, and while im ok with the boss of a firmsaying "ted you're a fuckwit, go work in the mailroom im never letting you speak to a client again" in not ok with "ted you did not share emotionally with sheila so we're gonna terminate your contract".

This affects me personally. I am a lovely person IN MY OWN WAY, i love my coworkers even if i think they are a bit dumb. My personality demands that when my supervisor of the spreadsheets department doesnt understand that colors DO NOT make excel sheets incompatible, i continue discussing and protesting this obvious incompetence. I then get called in by HR because of my obstructionist behaviour because if my superior says colors break excel then colors break excel.

Thats IRL story right there. Paraphrasing:

HR: you're a dick
ME: I'M a dick ??
HR: yes
ME: im a dick for doing the job BETTER ?!?
HR: yes

A lot of bad stuff can hide behind "don't be a dick", when there is no definition of "be a dick".

 

[realibrad]

I'm very aware of what realibrad has to say and also believe he is very wrong as are you. Learn to not be a dick, deal with your behavioral issues, know where the line is in your basic interactions with your fellow humans. This isn't hard and the sky is falling bull shit from your side isn't helping your case. If you can't make your technical case as to why your code is better than someone else's on its own merits without resorting to the kind of behavior this code of conduct is intended to stop then that is a personal issue not something the rest of the world just has to accept because you're so brilliant.

Don't be a dick is a perfectly fine thing to add. Considering how things were, its a step up from before. The issue at hand is that they are trying to improve the behavior (good) and also moving away from a merit system (bad). You and others are focusing on the first part, and somehow thinking that only the first part is the issue to people. Even though people have explicitly stated that what they take issue with is the 2nd part, you think its really about the first part. That is why you say things like "don't be a dick".

So, do you think people should be judged, or their code should be judged when it comes to what gets added to Linux?

 

[fskimospy]

This isnt directly related to the issue, but i personally believe there is nothing legally wrong with being a dick.
I think that if you are a horrible, unreachable person you can be obstracized, people can avoid you, you canbe sidelined. You have a horrible personality so people are entitled to despise your personality.
But i do not agree that you can be fired. I solemny believe that no human should have a legal duty to be nice, and while im ok with the boss of a firmsaying "ted you're a fuckwit, go work in the mailroom im never letting you speak to a client again" in not ok with "ted you did not share emotionally with sheila so we're gonna terminate your contract".

This affects me personally. I am a lovely person IN MY OWN WAY, i love my coworkers even if i think they are a bit dumb. My personality demands that when my supervisor of the spreadsheets department doesnt understand that colors DO NOT make excel sheets incompatible, i continue discussing and protesting this obvious incompetence. I then get called in by HR because of my obstructionist behaviour because if my superior says colors break excel then colors break excel.

Thats IRL story right there. Paraphrasing:

HR: you're a dick
ME: I'M a dick ??
HR: yes
ME: im a dick for doing the job BETTER ?!?
HR: yes

A lot of bad stuff can hide behind "don't be a dick", when there is no definition of "be a dick".

It’s entirely okay to fire someone for being a dick. People who act like assholes make everyone else’s work environment bad and that leads to lower employee morale, turnover, etc.

You don’t have a legal duty to be nice but they also don’t have a legal duty to employ you.

 

[realibrad]

It’s entirely okay to fire someone for being a dick. People who act like assholes make everyone else’s work environment bad and that leads to lower employee morale, turnover, etc.

You don’t have a legal duty to be nice but they also don’t have a legal duty to employ you.

Hypothetical*

Can an employer fire someone because the employee talks about politics that the employer disagrees with when that employee is talking to customers and the policy is to not talk politics to customers? The person in this hypothetical accomplishes their duties in all ways and the only rule they have broken is talking politics to customers. The justification from the employer is that politics could offend customers and so its banned, but, this employee has a political view in opposition to the employer. The other employees seem to follow this rule, so there is no claim of selective enforcement.

 

[DigDog]

Thats edging on moralthink. If im contracted to produce great code my only concern is to produce great code.

And lets go back to this "the work emvironment is a safe space" thing. People ARE abrasive. It's the nature of belonging to a species that utilizes conflict as a problem solving mechanism (which, you know, is just about every living species ever; even inanimate objects use it).
Atsome point there needs to be a choice whether one belongs to the "dont be a dick" camp or the "man up" camp. One of the two produces better results.

 

[fskimospy]

Hypothetical*

Can an employer fire someone because the employee talks about politics that the employer disagrees with when that employee is talking to customers and the policy is to not talk politics to customers? The person in this hypothetical accomplishes their duties in all ways and the only rule they have broken is talking politics to customers. The justification from the employer is that politics could offend customers and so its banned, but, this employee has a political view in opposition to the employer. The other employees seem to follow this rule, so there is no claim of selective enforcement.

Yes, of course.

 

[fskimospy]

Thats edging on moralthink. If im contracted to produce great code my only concern is to produce great code.

And lets go back to this "the work emvironment is a safe space" thing. People ARE abrasive. It's the nature of belonging to a species that utilizes conflict as a problem solving mechanism (which, you know, is just about every living species ever; even inanimate objects use it).
Atsome point there needs to be a choice whether one belongs to the "dont be a dick" camp or the "man up" camp. One of the two produces better results.

You appear to be gravely mistaken as to what your job duties are, assuming you work in a standard office setting. Your job is to produce great code WHILE not preventing others from working effectively. After all you are not really being contracted to produce code, you are contracted to further the company’s interests. If you aren’t doing that you can and should be fired. I’m very confident that whoever you work for has policies about personal conduct.

No one seems to be arguing for the work environment as a safe space except for you. You want to be free from the consequences of your actions. You are entirely free to be as much of an asshole as you want, all day every day. Your employer is also entirely free to decide that he wants to contract with someone else who doesn’t create a bad work environment for others.

This is really about personal responsibility. You need to take ownership of your behavior and accept it has consequences.

 

[DigDog]

Ah ok ok buddy im not arguing for a safe space office - the very opposite. And that "no one but you" clearly ignores the Gamergate shenanigans.

But we're not too far from each other in the rest of the argument. I dont want someone who runs around the office with his dick out, but this "seems" (this directly regarding the question at hand of the CC/CoC) that accepting this also means having to accept an office where addressing as "he" someone who identifies as a logarithm is grounds for dismissal (the correct noun is "log").

Also there's something to be said for private businesses; that they should be allowed to have "..then dont work here" clauses.

The idea that YOU OWE ME that work vacancy IT'S MY RIGHT TO WORK WHERE I WANT managed to creep so far *just* on its merit of how unreal it is.

For example, i support gay marriage. I alsso support the cake guy who says "gays are yucky im not baking your cake". I support a firm saying we wont hire him if hes black. Hey, you want to lose a millions-producing lawyer because of his ethnicity, be my guest. I support the right of Revenge club (brighton) to not let you in unless you are gay.

But you say "your employer has the right to hire someone who (implies isnt quite as good as you) doesnt make life hell for everyone else".
Ok, but do they have the same right to DO hire that person? Doesnt the right to choose between A and B imply you CAN choose B ?

Because thats what is happening here, companies saying "we'd rather have these crazy people because they are better" and people external to that company saying "no YOU MUST hire nice people instead".

 

[IronWing]

In reading this thread, I have gained new wisdom: never play chicken with an aspie.

 

[brandonbull]

Another thread where super nerds choose the oddest fucking hill to die on.

This is nothing more than essentially saying that its possible to create an environment when high quality code is produced without acting like a dick. Linux doesn't need to be run like Uber was.

I would say stop getting so butthurt. If you don't like the work environment, walk away or produce results to where you can shut the dickish people up. If you are bringing the steam, it's hard to be f'ed with.

 

[Gryz]

If im contracted to produce great code my only concern is to produce great code.

Do you even work ?
Do you even work at a real company ?

The last contract I signed a few years ago, to work for an International company, (with 100k+ employees), I also had to sign a covenant document that can be summarized as: "don't be a dick".

In my experience, when a large company has to make a decision to deal with a "difficult" employee, they will try to get rid of him. Fire, early retire, or just ask him to leave. When working in a social environment (and all companies are social environments), you better behave. If you don't, you are considered contra-productive. No matter how great your code is. Delivering a product is a team effort. Always. Some people will contribute (a lot) more than others. But even those employees can be replaced. If you don't realize this, did you ever do any work that mattered ?

 

[realibrad]

Do you even work ?
Do you even work at a real company ?

The last contract I signed a few years ago, to work for an International company, (with 100k+ employees), I also had to sign a covenant document that can be summarized as: "don't be a dick".

In my experience, when a large company has to make a decision to fire or not fire a "difficult" employee, they will find reason to fire him. Or ask him to leave. When working in a social environment (and all companies are social environments), you better behave. If you don't, you are considered contra-productive. No matter how great your code is. Delivering a product is a team effort. Always. Some people will contribute (a lot) more than others. But even those employees can be replaced. If you don't realize this, did you ever did any work that mattered ?

I get your point about his tangent, but, do you agree that its a bad idea to not rate code on merit? Do you understand that the foundation of the COC is to stop using merit as the metric?

 

[Moonbeam]

Lol, act like a dick and throw in a question and wonder why I disengage. Well done.

You made a grammar mistake that led to incoherency and didn’t fix it. Most people see pin head engineers as dicks. I called you a pin head engineer as a factual description. You called me a dick. See how you see in me who you are. What you bring to the table is the assumption that if I describe you as something you feel equates you to being a dick that means I feel about you as you feel about dicks. But I don’t feel that way. My observation of your disruptive sidelining argumentativeness, shall we call it, is free of condemnation. It describes something I see about you that you don’t see yourself, rather apparently.

 

[Moonbeam]

In reading this thread, I have gained new wisdom: never play chicken with an aspie.

Deeply insightful. This is, however also deeply interesting to me because my sense is that while it may be Asperger like, the central feature seems to me to involve some form of empathy defect, a weakness in feeling what others may feel. We know this is a rather old condition that covered by expressions like ‘walk a mile in someone else’s shoes.

 

[dainthomas]

Sounds like the aspies on this thread are so used to having their "quirky" behavior coddled, they get all out of sorts when others finally call them out on it.

 

[Gryz]

do you agree that its a bad idea to not rate code on merit?

Sure. If we could define what "merit" is.

I am a coding purist. I want to see the best solution (using the best algorithms). I don't care about memory usage, I care about performance. (That because of the field I've been working in in the past). I care about documenting my code, although you should watch out to not overdo it. I write comments. I think comments are human readable, and thus should start with a capital and end with a dot. I care about readability. I care about naming my variables and functions (fuck camelCode and fuck hungarian notation). I am more strict than everybody in my previous company. Do you think they shared my opinions ? Not in the least. The only thing that mattered was that the code "worked". That was their "merit". It drove me crazy. I might be more close in my thinking to Thorvalds than I might be close to the average programmer. The average programmer thinks merit is "it works".

So, what is merit again ?

Do you understand that the foundation of the COC is to stop using merit as the metric?

No, it's not. It's intention is to stop people being dicks. It can be done in regular companies. It can be done in the Linux community to. No problem. Have a little faith in people. Stop being a dick to people yourself. (This is targeted to DogDick especially). You can't have "the right to be a dick, because I'm slightly better than average". Even Thorvalds himself did not have the right to be a dick, it turned out.

DogDIck is just trying to defend his privilege to be a dick, it now turns out. As usual, when dumbasses attack so-called SJWs. They thought they had the right to be a dick, and get away with it. And suddenly this privilege is under danger. Then the crying starts.


Another thing seems to be your perception of how the Linux community works. You all seem to think the community is all these awesome individuals that work individually to beat the large corporations (like evil Microsoft and Apple). The American myth of the hero individual fighting against the large co-operative, social, commie, big bad organizations. Long live the individual. Long live freedom.

https://www.linuxfoundation.org/membership/
Fact is that 90%+ of the code that gets contributed to Linux or most other OSS projects, was written by employees of large companies. Working for those companies, being paid by those companies, working in the interest of those companies.
https://www.linuxfoundation.org/blo...ontributing-to-the-linux-kernel-in-2015-2016/

The top 10 companies, which employ kernel developers to contribute to the Linux kernel, make up nearly 57 percent of the total changes to the kernel. The category “none,” which represents volunteer developers who aren’t paid by any company, fell to the No. 3 spot this year from No. 1 in the last report issued in 2015. ... A large portion of development continues to be developers of unknown corporate affiliation, who typically contribute 10 or fewer changes.

Linux is not a pet-project of a few hero-indivuals. It hasn't been for the last 15+ years. Linux is a commercial project. But the inner workings of that project seem to be a mystery (or mysterious myth) to most people. SJWs are not gonna take over Linux. SJW are not gonna destroy Linux. You are all reacting like a bunch of teenage girls on their period.

(I apologize to teenage girls. But I think these "manly man programmers" need to understand that a) being insulted isn't fun, and b) they are overreacting).

 

[realibrad]

Sure. If we could define what "merit" is.

I am a coding purist. I want to see the best solution (using the best algorithms). I don't care about memory usage, I care about performance. (That because of the field I've been working in in the past). I care about documenting my code, although you should watch out to not overdo it. I write comments. I think comments are human readable, and thus should start with a capital and end with a dot. I care about readability. I care about naming my variables and functions (fuck camelCode and fuck hungarian notation). I am more strict than everybody in my previous company. Do you think they shared my opinions ? Not in the least. The only thing that mattered was that the code "worked". That was their "merit". It drove me crazy. I might be more close in my thinking to Thorvalds than I might be close to the average programmer. The average programmer thinks merit is "it works".

So, what is merit again ?


No, it's not. It's intention is to stop people being dicks. It can be done in regular companies. It can be done in the Linux community to. No problem. Have a little faith in people. Stop being a dick to people yourself. (This is targeted to DogDick especially). You can't have "the right to be a dick, because I'm slightly better than average". Even Thorvalds himself did not have the right to be a dick, it turned out.

DogDIck is just trying to defend his privilege to be a dick, it now turns out. As usual, when dumbasses attack so-called SJWs. They thought they had the right to be a dick, and get away with it. And suddenly this privilege is under danger. Then the crying starts.


Another thing seems to be your perception of how the Linux community works. You all seem to think the community is all these awesome individuals that work individually to beat the large corporations (like evil Microsoft and Apple). The American myth of the hero individual fighting against the large co-operative, social, commie, big bad organizations. Long live the individual. Long live freedom.

https://www.linuxfoundation.org/membership/
Fact is that 90%+ of the code that gets contributed to Linux or most other OSS projects, was written by employees of large companies. Working for those companies, being paid by those companies, working in the interest of those companies.
https://www.linuxfoundation.org/blo...ontributing-to-the-linux-kernel-in-2015-2016/


Linux is not a pet-project of a few hero-indivuals. It hasn't been for the last 15+ years. Linux is a commercial project. But the inner workings of that project seem to be a mystery (or mysterious myth) to most people. SJWs are not gonna take over Linux. SJW are not gonna destroy Linux. You are all reacting like a bunch of teenage girls on their period.

(I apologize to teenage girls. But I think these "manly man programmers" need to understand that a) being insulted isn't fun, and b) they are overreacting).

From what wall of a response, let me address the main point. Why do you think its about making people not be dicks, when it is explicitly stated "Here is a Code of Conduct statement for the wider kernel? It is based on the Contributor Covenant as described at www.contributor-covenant.org"

So, what do you get when you go over that contributor covenant? You get this on the Contributor-Covenant home page.

"Marginalized people also suffer some of the unintended consequences of dogmatic insistence on meritocratic principles of governance."

So, if it were not about moving away from meritocratic principles, why would they say their new COC is based on the foundation that meritocratic principles are bad?

tl;dr

The COC is based on Contributor Covenant which says meritocratic principles are bad.

 

[DigDog]

Oops, i meant Gryz
i dont get the feeling you are actually looking through what we write. We've already given well reasoned, substantiated arguments as to why the way you see things doesnt take into consideration the evidence presented.

Or as they would say in school, you dont want to learn.

I wont even go over your strawman.

 

[Moonbeam]

The COC is based on Contributor Covenant which says meritocratic principles are bad.

Gryz said that "It's intention is to stop people being dicks." How do you lead an argument in your direction by using a general word like bad for a specific form of bad, being a dick. I sensed that what is meant by bad or being a dick on the SJW warrior side of the argument was the idea that meritocracy is too overemphasized as a virtue and that other considerations are warranted.

 

[realibrad]

Gryz said that "It's intention is to stop people being dicks." How do you lead an argument in your direction by using a general word like bad for a specific form of bad, being a dick. I sensed that what is meant by bad or being a dick on the SJW warrior side of the argument was the idea that meritocracy is too overemphasized as a virtue and that other considerations are warranted.

Because being a dick in the abstract is bad. Its much easier for me to have the conversation at that level.

Are you going to have a rational discussion again, or, will you do what you did before?

 

[Moonbeam]

Oops, i meant Gryz
i dont get the feeling you are actually looking through what we write. We've already given well reasoned, substantiated arguments as to why the way you see things doesnt take into consideration the evidence presented.

Or as they would say in school, you dont want to learn.

I wont even go over your strawman.

That seems to be a silly argument to take when you evidently feel a need for 'safe spaces' while protesting your argument is the opposite. People don't really like dicks that ooze dick arrogance. Personally, I sympathize with your condition. I warrant you probably have high skills in one area but are quite blind in another, which is doubtless confusing.

 

[OutHouse]

It’s entirely okay to fire someone for being a dick. People who act like assholes make everyone else’s work environment bad and that leads to lower employee morale, turnover, etc.

You don’t have a legal duty to be nice but they also don’t have a legal duty to employ you.

I experiened this last year. New CIO/VP of Development was hired. she was headhunted from a very large company here in Denver. Long story short she was a dick. her direct reports hated her with a passion. she was a tyrant in meetings and publicly embarrassed people. These were very good people and a few held the patents to components our company manufactured. she got after me once in a meeting and I almost lost my professional cool. anyway long story short she lasted 6 months. people had enough, complaints flowed in from all departments and from all levels. one Friday morning HR and her boss intercepted her as she entered the building took her in a conference room and gave her walking papers and walked her out. god damn that was a good day. you felt the black cloud immediately lift when she left the building for the last time.