Slashdot Mirror


Linux Kernel Adopts 'Code of Conflict'

Motor was one of several readers to note that a small patch recently added to the Linux kernel contains guidelines for discourse and dispute resolution within the community. It's called the "Code of Conflict." Quoting: Your code and ideas behind it will be carefully reviewed, often resulting in critique and criticism. The review will almost always require improvements to the code before it can be included in the kernel. Know that this happens because everyone involved wants to see the best possible solution for the overall success of Linux. .... If however, anyone feels personally abused, threatened, or otherwise uncomfortable due to this process, that is not acceptable. ... As a reviewer of code, please strive to keep things civil and focused on the technical issues involved.

93 comments

  1. Well by Gaygirlie · · Score: 5, Funny

    I guess Linus needs a new job.

    1. Re:Well by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I guess Linus needs a new job.

      I'm sure, the first time Linus behaves like an ass towards someone, this code of conduct will get explained away and rendered completely irrelevant.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    2. Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      This is the beginning of the end for Linux. Forking under a different name might be require to restore quality over petty feelings.

    3. Re:Well by NotInHere · · Score: 2

      I wonder he doesn't rant against the creator of that code.

    4. Re:Well by darkain · · Score: 4, Funny

      SIMPLE! He'll just revert the patch. Problem solved!

    5. Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Petty also means in a small-minded or spiteful manner.

      Maybe that is what you meant.

    6. Re: Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's cute, you think it will ever have meaning and purpose.

    7. Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your kernel ends where my feelings begin.

    8. Re:Well by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I would hope someone like Linus did not have to spend even a nanosecond worrying about useless crap like this. Seems like an email I got today from some idiot entrepreneur trying to sell training courses about "The spread of negativity". Negativity is the best weapon against up-jumped stupids, or the worst: stupid by committee. I used to work for a company that "forbade" negative feedback. They hardly exist anymore, selling lousy products only a few customers buy. The problem was that they let everyone have a voice, even the stupids. There was no way to convince the stupids they were stupid. If you provided any data at all that was not in support of the stupidity, it was viewed as negative and not allowed in to the discussion. This is an example of rule by stupid, and while somehow the US government ekes by, it tends to ruin most serious endeavors. In my opinion, the best way of shooting down stupid is to publicly elucidate all the reasons their idea is stupid. They can either fix it if they're not as stupid as they appear, or because they're truly stupid, they can go away and stop bothering everyone which has a surprisingly high benefit to productivity.

      It's shame if someone has to resort to racist/sexist/etc. remarks to explain to you why an idea is stupid, there are better ways. One should point out to them how stupid their feedback really is, if by invoking inalterable, irrelevant, and unsupportable facts of existence in a pejorative manner they undermine the goals of their own project. Assuming sufficient evidence is provided about the technical issues at hand, however, one should ignore the stupid commentary and focus on the evidence of technical stupidity, and either eliminate it if possible, or abandon the idea. But with any luck people who have a demonstrated track record of success can continue to tell you how stupid you are and not run afoul of the "rules". I say this and at one point in recent history I am fairly sure Linus threatened death on me and my kind, but he was right to do so, there was a lot of stupid-by-committee at work and it was making everything really stupid. Being threatened did very little to address the root cause of the problem, but it did highlight the symptoms that were previously being ignored because it was inconvenient to the stupids who had assumed role of alpha-geek. Those stupids did eventually back off, as it became clear their stupid was not being well tolerated by a community outside their control.

    9. Re: Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You can't argue with stupid people or even explain to them why they are wrong. Why? Because they are too stupid to understand. And guess what happens in real life? Most people are stupid. Humanity edges ahead with minor periods of great advancement until stupid people take over and take us backwards again. And again. And again. And yet again.

    10. Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I find it quite amusing that calling someone who, despite repeated being told not to do certain things, an idiot is considered being abusive, while the kind of behaviour that usually provokes such outburst in the first place is A-OK. I guess most people really are idiots and assholes, and as such sympathize with the "victim" when one of their kind gets called out.

    11. Re:Well by drinkypoo · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Negativity is the best weapon against up-jumped stupids

      Ironically, no, no it is not. Positive reinforcement is superior because it doesn't make people feel bad about themselves, which leads to more negative behavior.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    12. Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would hope someone like Linus did not have to spend even a nanosecond worrying about useless crap like this. Seems like an email I got today from some idiot entrepreneur trying to sell training courses about "The spread of negativity". Negativity is the best weapon against up-jumped stupids, or the worst: stupid by committee. I used to work for a company that "forbade" negative feedback. They hardly exist anymore, selling lousy products only a few customers buy. The problem was that they let everyone have a voice, even the stupids. There was no way to convince the stupids they were stupid. If you provided any data at all that was not in support of the stupidity, it was viewed as negative and not allowed in to the discussion. This is an example of rule by stupid, and while somehow the US government ekes by, it tends to ruin most serious endeavors. In my opinion, the best way of shooting down stupid is to publicly elucidate all the reasons their idea is stupid. They can either fix it if they're not as stupid as they appear, or because they're truly stupid, they can go away and stop bothering everyone which has a surprisingly high benefit to productivity.

      It's shame if someone has to resort to racist/sexist/etc. remarks to explain to you why an idea is stupid, there are better ways. One should point out to them how stupid their feedback really is, if by invoking inalterable, irrelevant, and unsupportable facts of existence in a pejorative manner they undermine the goals of their own project. Assuming sufficient evidence is provided about the technical issues at hand, however, one should ignore the stupid commentary and focus on the evidence of technical stupidity, and either eliminate it if possible, or abandon the idea. But with any luck people who have a demonstrated track record of success can continue to tell you how stupid you are and not run afoul of the "rules". I say this and at one point in recent history I am fairly sure Linus threatened death on me and my kind, but he was right to do so, there was a lot of stupid-by-committee at work and it was making everything really stupid. Being threatened did very little to address the root cause of the problem, but it did highlight the symptoms that were previously being ignored because it was inconvenient to the stupids who had assumed role of alpha-geek. Those stupids did eventually back off, as it became clear their stupid was not being well tolerated by a community outside their control.

      This is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

    13. Re:Well by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I've know a few people like you over the years, and they were basically impossible to work with. The problem is that they went around loudly proclaiming that everyone else was stupid, but when their own ideas were dumb it was impossible for them to accept. No matter how well reasoned the argument, no matter how often it was pointed out they could never back down for fear of being branded stupid, the very thing they despise the most.

      Everyone makes mistakes. Everyone is born knowing nothing and has to learn. If you can't deal with that it's your problem. Becoming antagonistic just creates an environment in which "stupid" prevails because people are either too afraid of being branded to speak up or too cock sure of themselves to accept they were wrong.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    14. Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You didn't read it right. It's perfectly acceptable for Linus to abuse people. What is not acceptable is for them to feel abused.

    15. Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would hope someone like Linus did not have to spend even a nanosecond worrying about useless crap like this.

      The fact that your post got modded up +4 shows just how non-useless a policy like this actually is. This sort of thing is a real problem.

    16. Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      >The only positive behavior stupid people can do is to leave.

      And that's negative behaviour when they certainly can offer a positive behaviour: Learning. Which, I'm assuming according to you, is impossible for them. But even if that's impossible there's another option: Just have them get work done under supervision and ask them not to comment.

      Otherwise you're re-inventing the yes-man atmosphere.

    17. Re:Well by SharpFang · · Score: 0

      Depends on content.

      1. This code doesn't apply to Linus. ...

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    18. Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't apply to linux or anyone important.

    19. Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      He's never really been an ass to someone on a personal level, unless you think calling out devs who do stupid things like including changes to the kernel which break userspace programs is being an ass. Plus, if you check out the membership of the Linux Foundations Technical Advisory Board, who are going to be responsible for hearing abuse reports, you'll see that its populated with some real stick-up-their-ass SJWs.

      Matthew Garrett and Sarah Sharp for starters. Who are the other ones?

    20. Re: Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry but telling people very graphically that they should not be alive (and this is as mild as I can put it) is NOT focusing on the technical issue, but a personal insult.

      I assume you have a citation for your claim?

    21. Re:Well by tlhIngan · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You can have negative feedback without negativity.

      Negativity is a virus that once it infects and takes hold, spreads rapidly and kills productivity and innovation.

      Negative feedback though is a positive thing, provided it's done correctly - i.e., it's not negativity, it's constructive criticism. The difference is that negativity focuses on the bad alone, while constructive criticism focuses on the rehabilitation.

      "This design is stupid. You're an idiot" is a negative statement that spreads negativity. "This design is stupid because you're not using the new architecture features that are going to be present in the new release and instead trying to reinvent the wheel" is negative feedback that becomes constructive because it now presents a resolution to the problem.

      It also turns the feedback giver from someone who always says no to someone who provides helpful assistance.

      If all you do is complain and bitch about everyone doing crap for work, one of two things happens - either it infects others and it turns into everyone bitching about everyone else and no work gets done, or you'll find yourself isolated as being difficult to work with. Add in racism/sexism/etc and other offensive comments (which have no place in the modern workplace or anywhere for that matter) and either you're out of a job or no one wants to work with you anymore.

      Hell, even Linux goes on rants, but at least he tries to justify his rant by giving feedback on what's wrong. He lacks tact and diplomacy, but at least he clearly explains why it's bad, and he attacks the technical content, not the person.

    22. Re:Well by recrudescence · · Score: 1

      I cannot like your reply enough. very nicely said.

    23. Re:Well by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

      They can feel abused. Who cares?

    24. Re:Well by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 2

      Brilliant analysis.

      Facebook started this crap of only allowing up votes. Parts of Reddit are now following the "Herp. Derp. Upvote only" mentality not thinking about what this really means.

      Down-votes are important so that when something has incorrectly been up voted, the community can self police and auto-correct itself.

      As another /. poster said:

        "How did we end up in the situation where the sham of Political Correctness became more important then Technical Correctness??

      One of the reasons /. has been around so long is that it provides a _context_ for WHY something was up/down voted.

    25. Re: Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      first of all, you did not "heard it",
      you read it.

      you must be one of the stupid peope he was talking about.

  2. Get a thicker skin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Point 1, Out in the non open source world, you have to deal with dicks all the time. People who will scupper a project rather than not get their way and will constantly whine about everything. Why do you think most companies produce mediocre software products and the bigger they are, the closer to junk their stuff is.

    To get those thick skin callouses, you have to have had a tough time, and that in turns means a bit of hurt. Its the same with software, you need to suffer these idiots a few times to not care about their whining.

    **********
    Point 2, This is about systemd isn't it? Really its the systemd thing again, people are deeply unhappy about this POS and you don't like them whining about it. They whine because they're unhappy, so what, you don't make them happy by forcing them to shut up, you make them happy by replacing the POS.

    *********
    Point 3, Offtopic, but I was late for the NSA Apple hack. I can't believe nobody pointed to the Linux backdoor attempt. The attempt to insert a backdoor that was added to code in the Linux Repository:

    https://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/felten/the-linux-backdoor-attempt-of-2003/

    if ((options == (__WCLONE|__WALL)) && (current->uid = 0))
                    retval = -EINVAL;

    1. Re:Get a thicker skin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mean words is literally rape! You don't support rape, do you? You wouldn't shake a sobbing gang-raped little girl by the shoulders and tell her to toughen up, would you?

  3. No Zoidbergs by antifoidulus · · Score: 5, Funny

    So I guess links like this won't be appreciated.

    1. Re:No Zoidbergs by CurryCamel · · Score: 1

      And so the problem remained; lots of the people were mean, and most of them were miserable, even the ones with digital watches. ...
      And then, one Thursday, nearly two thousand years after one man had been nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be to be nice to people for a change, one girl sitting on her own in a small cafe in Rickmansworth suddenly realized what it was that had been going wrong all this time, and she finally knew how the world could be made a good and happy place.

      Zoidbergs win.

      Why is it so much easier to be mean than polite? Or to slip into (the passive-agressiveness of) political correctness? Some design flaw there in the human brain/soul.

  4. Mommy! Mommy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The mean Linux team doesn't love my bad code!

  5. The full text by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Informative
    Linus himself merged it. To me it looks like standard HR CYA legal language, but at least it quotes Bill & Ted.

    The Linux kernel development effort is a very personal process compared to "traditional" ways of developing software. Your code and ideas behind it will be carefully reviewed, often resulting in critique and criticism. The review will almost always require improvements to the code before it can be included in the kernel. Know that this happens because everyone involved wants to see the best possible solution for the overall success of Linux. This development process has been proven to create the most robust operating system kernel ever, and we do not want to do anything to cause the quality of submission and eventual result to ever decrease.

    If however, anyone feels personally abused, threatened, or otherwise uncomfortable due to this process, that is not acceptable. If so, please contact the Linux Foundation's Technical Advisory Board at , or the individual members, and they will work to resolve the issue to the best of their ability. For more information on who is on the Technical Advisory Board and what their role is, please see: http://www.linuxfoundation.org...

    As a reviewer of code, please strive to keep things civil and focused on the technical issues involved. We are all humans, and frustrations can be high on both sides of the process. Try to keep in mind the immortal words of Bill and Ted, "Be excellent to each other."

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:The full text by martiniturbide · · Score: 4, Informative

      I think that Wil Wheaton advice is also good for this kind of conflict situation:
      https://dontbeadickday.com/

      It even has a "simple chart" to explain it.

    2. Re:The full text by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Shut up, Wesley!

    3. Re:The full text by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too bad he himself doesn't adhere to that anymore.

    4. Re:The full text by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is anything in there even remotely "legal language"? It's very straightforward, even casual. It asks for submitters to not be touchy about critique, and for reviewers to be civil and technical, and it tells you whom to call if this arrangement breaks down.

    5. Re:The full text by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does this mean that retroactive abortions are of the question from now on? Damn.

    6. Re:The full text by Krishnoid · · Score: 1

      Linus himself merged it.

      I always suspected that one day he would realize his kids were imitating his behavior, and wondered how he would respond. Maybe that's what happened here.

  6. Two code fragments enter... by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 2

    One fragment leaves.

    1. Re:Two code fragments enter... by babydog · · Score: 1

      Linux 4.0 should be named Thunderdome?

  7. Congress should learn to code.... by Bob_Who · · Score: 1

    They can't even write civil code these days.

    1. Re:Congress should learn to code.... by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      Of course they can't write civil code; they're programmers, not lawyers.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    2. Re:Congress should learn to code.... by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      They can't even write civil code these days.

      How can they write civil code when all they know is conflict?

  8. Don't be so sure of that! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Don't be so sure of that.

    The same thing was said when unwanted changes started happening to GNOME, Firefox and Debian.

    With GNOME and Firefox, it was said early on that bad UI changes were just experimental, and could be ignored. If they were bad, they'd be reverted. Well, they did turn out to be bad. They were very bad, in fact. Yet they were not reverted. Once they were in place, they were pretty much considered as being locked in. Any critics were ridiculed and silenced. There was no going back at that point. What is the end result? GNOME is basically a dead project, and Firefox is near death.

    A more recent example is, of course, Debian and systemd. Despite being absolutely disastrous for many Debian users (I'm talking about systems that no longer booted properly, which is about as bad as it gets), systemd is still being pushed upon the entire Debian community. Given its many flaws, it should never have made it into Debian in the first place, and even now that it has, it should be removed. But it won't be. Any critics are ridiculed and silenced. Like with GNOME and Firefox, we're seeing Debian dying before our very eyes.

    Linus' leadership role is on its way out, I fear. Linux is done, too. It's suffering from the same disease that has affected GNOME, Firefox and Debian: technological correctness taking a backseat to political correctness. It's no longer considered acceptable to point out technical flaws with people's work. Instead, shitty software is accepted and even admired in some cases, while those who stand for doing things right get treated like utter shit and censored.

    1. Re:Don't be so sure of that! by gcnaddict · · Score: 4, Insightful

      With GNOME and Firefox, it was said early on that bad UI changes were just experimental, and could be ignored. If they were bad, they'd be reverted. Well, they did turn out to be bad. They were very bad, in fact. Yet they were not reverted. Once they were in place, they were pretty much considered as being locked in. Any critics were ridiculed and silenced. There was no going back at that point. What is the end result? GNOME is basically a dead project, and Firefox is near death.

      Sounds like the sunk cost fallacy in play. Lots of investment in a bad decision makes people feel obligated to stay the course because of the unrecoverable development time.

      --
      Viable Slashdot alternatives: https://pipedot.org/ and http://soylentnews.org/
    2. Re:Don't be so sure of that! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given its many flaws, it should never have made it into Debian in the first place, and even now that it has, it should be removed. But it won't be. Any critics are ridiculed and silenced. Like with GNOME and Firefox, we're seeing Debian dying before our very eyes.

      Except all the competing distributions also use systemd, so this isn't likely to kill Debian.

    3. Re:Don't be so sure of that! by Microlith · · Score: 0, Troll

      With GNOME and Firefox, it was said early on that bad UI changes were just experimental, and could be ignored. If they were bad, they'd be reverted. Well, they did turn out to be bad. They were very bad, in fact.

      Sounds like someone is presenting a subjective opinion as fact.

      Any critics were ridiculed and silenced.

      Nonsense, the critics got louder and more irritating while failing to seriously substantiate their arguments.

      Linus' leadership role is on its way out, I fear. Linux is done, too. It's suffering from the same disease that has affected GNOME, Firefox and Debian: technological correctness taking a backseat to political correctness.

      I see, you're not here to present anything rational, you're here to troll.

    4. Re:Don't be so sure of that! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "while those who stand for doing things right get treated like utter shit and censored."

      People should be killed for this.

    5. Re: Don't be so sure of that! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The victim complex is strong in this one lol

    6. Re:Don't be so sure of that! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Which is almost always tied to some individual's ego or vision. Old guard vs progressives. The new pups can't stake their claim and make a name for themselves without tearing up the existing drapes. If it turns out the interior decoration was a very deliberate product of significant consideration then the "innovate or perish" argument is made. Fear of change vs fear or irrelevance. King Arthur of the round table is supposed to swoop in and save the day with his infinite wisdom, but Merlin retired and over time you lose sight of the forest through the trees as you become too close to the minutiae behind the status quo. You either invested in your legacies future by choosing and training a successor or the tail starts wagging the dog as maggots monetize/cannibalize the brand for their own fiefdom's benefit.

    7. Re:Don't be so sure of that! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bingo!

      Oh wait. Were we not playing that?

    8. Re:Don't be so sure of that! by walterbyrd · · Score: 2

      Once Red Hat decides that two different package management strategies are impractical, you can be sure that systemd will be made to no longer accept the Debian method.

      Once that happens, who needs Debian?

    9. Re:Don't be so sure of that! by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The exact same thing of over engineering is happening in the C++ community. :-(

      At the risk of being down-voted, Scott Meyers, a C++ guru, has an absolutely beautiful talk on _why_ C++ has become a complete clusterfuck of complexity, and bad ad hoc design at a D conference of all things!

      DConf 2014: The Last Thing D Needs (Scott Meyers)
      * https://www.youtube.com/watch?....

    10. Re:Don't be so sure of that! by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      Despite being absolutely disastrous for many Debian users (I'm talking about systems that no longer booted properly, which is about as bad as it gets), systemd is still being pushed upon the entire Debian community. Given its many flaws, it should never have made it into Debian in the first place, and even now that it has, it should be removed.

      Yeah I know. The Debian unstable branch suddenly had stability problems and people freaked out about something that was given in the title.
      Given how there's not a single stable Debian release with systemd I would say that everything is working exactly as it should, always has, and that everything is right in the world.

      Don't get me wrong I see an impending train wreak, but I'll reserve my criticism for when the carnage happens, not when the train is peacefully travelling on its tracks.

      There are no complaints which have any legitimacy on the current Debian releases except for "I don't like where this is heading".

    11. Re:Don't be so sure of that! by rdnetto · · Score: 1

      Linus' leadership role is on its way out, I fear. Linux is done, too. It's suffering from the same disease that has affected GNOME, Firefox and Debian: technological correctness taking a backseat to political correctness. It's no longer considered acceptable to point out technical flaws with people's work. Instead, shitty software is accepted and even admired in some cases, while those who stand for doing things right get treated like utter shit and censored.

      Linus isn't going anywhere. The code of conflict basically says "Your code will be criticized, deal with it. If you're subject to personal attacks, here's where you can complain." Note that Linus' infamous rants have always been direct criticisms of the code, so he won't be affected by this. The code doesn't promise anything more than "[resolution] of the issue to the best of their ability".

      --
      Most human behaviour can be explained in terms of identity.
  9. Beware Jihaddist bearing Gifts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only problem with Forking is then follows the Code of the Mafia

    People on the whole are very Intolerant and Dangerous, if you code they share come.. and probably Not with good intentions

    Its shear Lunacy to announce a Code Fork

  10. A victory for social justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now those who stand in the way of important change, such as systemd like refactorizations, can be swept aside by claiming they violate this code of conflict when they criticize those trying to force a sea change.

    Just like in Debian!

    Standing in the way of progress... hmm your technical arguments are sound.
    But it seems you dislike feminists / gays / women / minorities so we're gunna hafta let you go! Don't let the door hit you on the ass!
    HAHAAA and we never even paied the fool a dime!

    1. Re: A victory for social justice by matyy7306 · · Score: 1

      Sounds like we have to choose between Mao Zedong (politics > skill) and Deng Xiaoping (the cat can be of any color, as long as it catches the mice)...

  11. Aw shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Death by political correctness hops onto the horizon.

    1. Re:Aw shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is not "political correctness".

      "Political correctness" has become a meaningless vague term of attack used against anything which involves not being an asshole.

  12. And appropriately ... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

    ... the Code of Conflict will be in C++

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  13. Give 'em an inch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I fully expect Linux development to be destroyed by drama after this. More time will be devoted to coddling people's feelings than getting stuff done.

    1. Re:Give 'em an inch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I kind of think the same thing. Now you are going to have to watch, that you don't hurt someones feelings, even though they submit a patch that literally is just an excuse not to fix your own code. I bet poitering and others will take full advantage of this and start flame wars how of how Linus can't reject the patch, because it hurts their feelings and they feel abused and shit like that. All Linus can now say is, 'hush, i can't not include your bad code', but that won't sink in to people who think their way is the only way.

      Most of the "news" i've seen about Linus telling someone to get their shit together have been things like that. Bad shit have been tried to put in the kernel just to avoid fixing bad code of their own and trying to add "features", which shouldn't be in the kernel anyway.'

      Though Linus should only do that when it is necessary, just because it does not fit in to the kernel/the way the kernel is made does not mean the programmer is dumb. The kernel is pretty sizable now, and not everything is known to everybody.

  14. Inoculation for Dunning-Krueger by MouseTheLuckyDog · · Score: 2

    It recently came to me that the kind of behavior they talk about has traditionally been inoculation against the Dunning-Krueger effect.

  15. Re:Aw it's shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is exactly why I release my code as a proprietary open source license. Users are free to view and modify the source for their own purposes but not distribute modifications of it. Any ideas, and I do mean ANY that anyone has submitted as code or suggestion my teammates or I can (re)code from scratch with less headache on every front from code style to copyright assignment to implementation details, and even SJW nonsense like which pronouns comments should have (He, since it's the gender neutral one according to etymology) .

    This means our team does more coding than project management, but we enjoy the former, not the latter.

  16. Too soon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    April Fools Day is still weeks away. Hasn't anyone bothered to tell Linus that comedy is all about timing?

  17. I thought "Code of Conflict" ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    was a codename for systemd

  18. This would benefit from improvement by Sara+Chan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If ... anyone feels personally abused, threatened, or otherwise uncomfortable due to this process, that is not acceptable.

    It does not matter how every person feels. There are some people who get offended about almost anything. The above quote seems to be part of the extreme political correctness that is infecting society—I never imagined that Linux development would go that way. Additionally, if people feel “uncomfortable”, that might well be well warranted and help them to develop.

    The quote would be better replaced by something that omits mention of feelings (which are internal and cannot be independently assessed). I suggest appealing to the “reasonable person”, as is commonly done in law. Here is an example: “Personal abuse and threats are unacceptable, as is any behavior that reasonable people would deem to be highly or persistently offensive”.

    1. Re:This would benefit from improvement by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      I see not evidence that the patch is calling for the extreme that you assume it is. Perhaps a very literal, mindless reading of it would suggest that, but I think most reasonable people would understand that it is assuming both sides are also reasonable.

      âoePersonal abuse and threats are unacceptable, as is any behavior that reasonable people would deem to be highly or persistently offensiveâ.

      That's just a re-statement of what it already says, but with the word "feel" that you place so much emphasis on removed. You replace it with "deem", which is just as subjective and impossible to independently assess. Try writing an exact definition of "highly offensive" against which actions and comments can be tested.

      A lot of people on Slashdot seem to want clear rules and tests for abuse that can be applied to these situations. Well, sorry, but real life doesn't work that way.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:This would benefit from improvement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see not evidence that the patch is calling for the extreme that you assume it is.

      It will be taken to that extreme because there's money in doing so.

    3. Re:This would benefit from improvement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If anyone feels [...] that is not acceptable: YHAL.
      "reasonable person" standards on the Internet: YHAL.

      amateurs, dude. Not that I've a better idea. Just saying. Amateurs.

    4. Re:This would benefit from improvement by Bathroom+Humor · · Score: 1

      I think the key there is "reasonable". To deny the existence (and increase) of people with destructively tender emotions would take a certain degree of blindness.
      Being constructive is the goal, while both overly offensive people AND easily offended people work counter to this goal. Having a compromise betwixt crybabies and assholes would be a good message to deliver. Feelings vary greatly between groups of people, and outliers hurt productivity due to constant temper tantrums, plus an inability to handle shortcomings. It's all very unreasonable.

  19. Not Acceptable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "If however, anyone feels personally abused, threatened, or otherwise uncomfortable due to this process, that is not acceptable."

    I agree that's not acceptable. Stop feeling that way, you pansies.

    1. Re:Not Acceptable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if you don't feel at least a bit uncomfortable getting your code reviewed by Linus and others at his level, you should probably get your ego checked for over inflation

  20. I like to see that more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's great. So now feeling personally abused, threatened, or otherwise uncomfortable due to the process of critical examination of one's code is officially unacceptable. I'm liking that a lot. No one should care about anyone's "precious feelings". Let's keep things professional and emotion-free.

  21. Poor wording by Brian+Kendig · · Score: 1

    "If however, anyone feels personally abused, threatened, or otherwise uncomfortable due to this process, that is not acceptable."

    It's not acceptable to feel abused/threatened/uncomfortable? That could have been worded better.

  22. Well well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's see how this gets abused. There's plenty of people with far more delicate feels than skills at kernel-grade C.

    Sometimes the masses have to learn it the hard way.

  23. Uncomftable by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

    If however, anyone feels personally abused, threatened, or otherwise uncomfortable due to this process, that is not acceptable

    Yes, god forbid we should ever make anybody feel uncomfortable.

    Might want to re-word that a bit.

    --
    Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
  24. Re:Aw it's shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    which pronouns comments should have (He, since it's the gender neutral one according to etymology) .

    When I point that out, I always end it with a "That is the queen's English, after all."

  25. I know, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Instead, shitty software is accepted and even admired in some cases, while those who stand for doing things right get treated like utter shit and censored.

    The cult of hacked-together bash scripts needs to die.

  26. Speak for yourself! ... at least in the case of FF by allquixotic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You seem to take it for granted that the changes made to Firefox were universally bad for all users, and that everyone hates them.

    As a regular user of Firefox on multiple platforms (Android, Fedora, and Windows), I have no problem with the changes they have made. I like the customization of the new menus and I like my tabs on top (though I could of course revert back to the old way if I wanted to, because they made it customizable and configurable). Almost everything they've done with Firefox from the 3.x releases up to the latest stable has been a net positive change for me, even when I've occasionally scratched my head at questionable decisions. Even their choices to completely disable certain broken websites have turned out for the better, because in every case where I've had such a broken website that I depended upon, the developers have come around to fixing the problem instead of making people run IE 6 or a patched browser that's deliberately insecure.

    The UI changes are not what is killing Firefox. The disruptive security policy enhancements that break sites are not what is killing Firefox.

    What's killing Firefox is the critical mass of Google Chrome, because it's being pre-loaded onto PCs out of the shop; is much faster for general use (faster page rendering and startup, so don't give me JS benchmark results), and more compatible with more sites. There is huge word of mouth support for Chrome among Joe User type people now -- people who swore by IE just a couple years ago. There's also Chrome's app store, which is causing many third party devs to release stuff that only supports Chrome, leaving competitors in the dust. Firefox may be able to match Chrome in some limited respect in some of these things, but they simply don't have the same word of mouth support that Chrome does among the vast majority of users. Oh, and it's the default browser on the mobile OS with the largest installed base in the world (since ICS anyway).

    Rather than Firefox being especially bad in any particular way (except for its abysmal startup time on mechanical hard drives when the files aren't in page cache), it's pretty much just that Chrome is better for your regular user who doesn't care about privacy, just functionality and speed. They are losing to a superior competitor. Even though they are accelerating the rate at which Firefox is getting better, Chrome is accelerating way faster than they can muster.

  27. Re:Where the fuck do they get their mandate?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where the fuck did the systemd people get their mandate.
    It's a coup.
    Linux, as we knew it, is done.
    The entire thing needs to be forked. From kernel to userland.

    Linus is a balls-in-fat-woman's-purse git
    .