Microsoft Apologizes For Inserting Naughty Phrase Into Linux Kernel

netbuzz writes "Microsoft has apologized and promised to rectify the fact that one of its developers slipped a sexist phrase into Linux kernel code supporting Microsoft's HyperV virtualization environment. In that code, the magic constant passed through to the hypervisor reads '0xB16B00B5,' or a slightly camouflaged 'BIG BOOBS.' After Linux developer/blogger Matthew Garrett criticized Microsoft for the stunt, the predictable debate over sexism in the technology world ensued. Microsoft issued a statement to Network World apologizing and added, 'We have submitted a patch to fix this issue and the change will be published in a future release of the kernel.'"

Comments

Sexism in tech

[thesandtiger]

There is enough real sexism that runs throughout tech circles that bringing up stupid things like this does nothing but give deniers more ammunition to point to when dismissing any charges of sexism as stupid.

I am a woman, I used to work in tech (and now do tech for research academics), and I have experienced a pretty large amount of sexist behavior in my career, from the merely annoying ("you must be the secretary" "no, I'm the team lead") to the work affecting and frustrating ("let me condescendingly explain this incredibly simple thing to you and completely tune out anything you're saying because girls are dumb") to the incredibly fucking horrifying ("you should be raped for doing this that way" "stupid cunt" - yes, both said by people I was collaborating with, and the repercussions to them weren't nearly as severe as they should have been for such a transgression).

A variable named big boobs is so not even on my fucking radar and is so fucking stupid to even mention that I'm actually kind of pissed so anyone even mentioned it. It's dumb and childish to put it in in the first place, but who cares?

Re:Not getting it...

[Rockoon]

YOU don't see anything wrong with it. YOU aren't offended by it. That's very nice and all, but

I both am not offended by it nor do I see something wrong with it. You do realize that these two things are not the same, right?

Your entire post is based on the premise that if someone is offended by something, then there is something wrong with that something. It is that premise that is whats wrong.

You are advocating the politically correct version of the thought police, but instead of telling people how they should think.. you are trying to tell people that they cant induce particular thoughts ("offended") in others. How dare I alter someones thoughts to a mode of being offended.. right? How dare I?

Did it ever occur to you that the "wrong" part in this whole ordeal (besides your entire post) is that someone got offended in the first place? If someone gets offended easily we call it a disorder. Hypersensitive blah blah and all that. You are suggesting that its normal to be offended by some thing, just not a lot of things. Those facts are not in evidence.

I suggest that its always wrong to be offended.. that its always a psychosis. What happens inside your head is your business, not mine. Dont make it mine. you wont like that.