Slashdot Mirror
Linus Torvalds is Back in Charge of Linux (zdnet.com)
At Open Source Summit Europe in Edinburgh, Scotland, Linus Torvalds is meeting with Linux's top 40 or so developers at the Maintainers' Summit. This is his first step back in taking over Linux's reins. From a report: A little over a month ago, Torvalds stepped back from running the Linux development community. In a note to the Linux Kernel Mailing List (LKML), Torvalds said, "I need to change some of my behavior, and I want to apologize to the people that my personal behavior hurt and possibly drove away from kernel development entirely. I am going to take time off and get some assistance on how to understand people's emotions and respond appropriately." That time is over. Torvalds is back.
Whether he'll be a kinder and gentler Torvalds remains to be seen. In the Linux 4.19 announcement, Greg Kroah-Hartman, Linux's temporary leader and maintainer of the stable branch, wrote: "Linus, I'm handing the kernel tree back to you. You can have the joy of dealing with the merge window :)"
Whether he'll be a kinder and gentler Torvalds remains to be seen. In the Linux 4.19 announcement, Greg Kroah-Hartman, Linux's temporary leader and maintainer of the stable branch, wrote: "Linus, I'm handing the kernel tree back to you. You can have the joy of dealing with the merge window :)"
Step 2: Admit that he was blackmailed and fuck all that bullshit he was forced to say.
I mean with the actual development of Linux? I seem to be getting regular kernel update.
Other then Linus trying to keep a cooler head, it was also a test to have Linux development controlled by someone else for a while to make sure it will still function, that all the support and infrastructure was in place.
If something happen to Linus, I really don't want to see the End of Linux.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Whether he'll be a kinder and gentler Torvalds remains to be seen.
Which is part of the problem with these public confession/appeasement things.
Someone can always claim you didn't get "woke" enough.
I can't imagine that trying to understand empathy and integrate it into your personality is like one of those sham Hollywood 28 day substance abuse therapy retreats. It will be interesting to see if anything about Linus' demeanor changes.
https://science.slashdot.org/s...
So it seems he is able to survive without smaltalk just fine.
So now you know that if you ask him a question you will get an anser, even if you don't like the answer. You will even get an answer without asking a question.
If you think it will be different, I have to ask: what have you been smoking?
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Like all "real men", he keeps what he said. Everyone needs a break sometimes. Linus also deserved that.
https://about.me/unixbhaskar
No small part of it is because the left has adopted a view that "marginalized people" are effectively entitled to be disruptive, toxic, etc. Because discrimination(tm). If you want proof that most human beings are miserably stupid, it's the fact that so many left wing activists cannot reconcile two principles they've advocated and realize how the lock together like Lego pieces:
1. Every innocent civilian killed by anti-terrorism operations breeds new terrorists as people bitterly resent being collateral damage.
2. "Marginalized people" cannot be guilty of oppressing "non-marginalized people" no matter how they behave.
A rational person with an IQ higher than the thermostat might have an "oh fuq...." moment here. Every "non-marginalized person" who is disemployed, hounded out of public life, etc. creates collateral damage in their family, friends and people sympathetic saying "shit man, that could be me too" just like many a Muslim has done when the USAF bombs a village.
When you allow too many professional complainers and trouble makers, usually with bizarre hair colour and face piercings, your team or even the whole business will got sh**t. Don't hire those freaks and keep everyone else happy.
Go away, Lennart.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I think the tech SJW's killed Terry Davis!
The fates of the two characters in title should caution anyone at the head of anything to not give up control if they still care...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Nice try, but it's 2018. Bullshit strawmen accusations of bigotry isn't enough these days. You gotta go for the fake rape allegations, too.
The SJW's shoving their CoC in everybody's face darn near destroyed LINUX in a matter of months.
Evidence please. Number of kernel maintainers who have left due to CoC?
(tumbleweed)
Right, it was just happening inside your head?
We Finns are direct, not impolite.
In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
Linux runs programs written in Visual Basic 6 through two userspace frameworks: X.Org X11 and Wine. For Visual Basic .NET, it uses X.Org X11 and Mono. What support from the kernel would make VB programs more efficient?
Accusations of xenophobia is where leftists go when they're out of intellectual ammo.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
Go eat a bag of dicks, hater.
In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
It was good for me if i needed BASIC audio from my system, but after 2 YEARS of battling with PA and nearly constant GNURadio audio overruns and stuttering audio problems, on a whim I removed PA...and I have not had a stuttering audio problem since. On other systems that I don't use GNURad on, I actually leave PA because it mostly works for what that system does.
I would make it all Ring 0 for performance reasons. Nothing could possibly go wrong. But now that Linus is back in charge it probably will never happen.
X11. If your client is on a separate machine, the correct way to run it, then you need a way to send audio to it.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
If anything is obvious it is that whatever process led to the creation of the greatest operating system ever written, that process, needs to change!
Everyone knows that when you've got the top product, company, or team, you need to pull a 180.
Wow, all seven of you users out there must be thrilled.
I just got done reading a great book Mistake Were Made (But Not By Me) . It's a very good read and quite insightful about how we justify our actions. It goes into how for the most part, people can't admit they made a mistake. In your example, Bill Clinton did not own up to his mistake. George W Bush maintained that there WERE WMDs in Iraq and we were completely justified in invading and occupying them. When faced with facts, people will double-down on their clearly incorrect statements. It talks about in our criminal justice system, which is rife with this cognitive discordance. It's quite fascinating. Remember the Central Park jogger case in the 80s? Police were able to coerce those kids to confessing to a crime they didn't commit by using interrogation tactics. Even though their confessions didn't line up, they had these guys, they were weak, and the police went in "like a pack of wolves".
Your idea that only weak people admit to mistakes is part of the problem. That isn't the case at all, it's actually quite the opposite. How can you trust ANYONE who refuses to admit fault - without justification, without conditions? It's the strong that can admit making mistakes, and the weak who cannot.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
> > This is visible, for example, in the difference between the affairs of Bill Clinton and Trump's tryst with Stormy Daniels. Now in terms of morality, both deeds are of course gravely sinful, despite being mutual (notwithstanding the illicit power dynamic in the case of Bill, though Hillary still refuses to acknowledge it).
Paula Jones didn't consent. She won a lawsuit against Bill. Bill was convicted of perjury during said lawsuit, which triggered impeachment. He settled all the cases after losing.
I want to know where he went and who "explained" things to him.
Someone should check his forehead for scars.
Also, why isn't this in the summary: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/code-of-conduct-interpretation.html.
Which has a LOT of really good language. Like how the scope doesn't include other forums. And you're not going to get banned for things you said years ago. But every damn thing in here should be a patch or update to that pile of garbage that is the original CoC. It's a damn good argument that the original was lacking and shouldn't have been used in the first place. When you are forced to use something for political reasons, you add a layer above or below it to deal with all the shit. And I smell politics here. It stinks.
But what's this?:
The initial Code of Conduct Committee consists of volunteer members of the TAB, as well as a professional mediator acting as a neutral third party.
. . . Who is this professional mediator? Why was it not mentioned before? Is it literally any hired professional mediator? Like the sort that gets mandated by a judge?
So the instead of going to the TAB it's going to a CoC Committee? That's honestly a good move. The TAB has way better things to do. The confidentiality clause STILL makes it a problem though. If reported issues are supposed to be kept confidential to the CoC Committee... how can the TAB review it? Or is this the sort of confidentiality where they can share it with anyone they want?
Any decisions by the committee will be brought to the TAB, for implementation of enforcement with the relevant maintainers if needed. A decision by the Code of Conduct Committee can be overturned by the TAB by a two-thirds vote.
Well thank god the children have to go get the mother-may-I from the adults. That sort of check on power will honestly go a long way towards keeping the crazy at bay.
as well details of any overridden decisions including complete and identifiable voting details.
I mean, that's fine. But it's a pretty conspicuous detail. Looks a lot like a set of crosshairs placed directly on the TAB in the explicit form of "WE NEED TO KNOW HOW YOU VOTED" sort of way. ....I want to know who negotiated these terms.
One interesting line that got removed from the actual LF CoC:
Project maintainers who do not follow or enforce the Code of Conduct in good faith may face temporary or permanent repercussions as determined by other members of the project’s leadership.
This line got removed. So that's... a specific set of crosshairs that's no longer on all contributors. That's good. It was a fluff piece of vaguely threatening language and has no real specific teeth, but it was still pretty disturbing in it's ability to be abused.
We expect to establish a different process for Code of Conduct Committee staffing beyond the bootstrap period.
I swear if you dumbasses buy into that CoC beacon bullshit we will riot.
https://www.kernel.org/code-of... . . . They STILL link to that racist hate-monger's website. I'm appalled that they'd stand next to that monster.
VB needs a peek and poke statement to access kernel memory.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
If anyone is interested, I got squashed in the #MeToo timeframe, about 15 years ago. What happened was a kernel update suddenly started making my Abit BP6 (dual) lock-up. I traced it to a new System Management Interupt service routine that would not handle double-interrupts. Masking off would fix it.
I reported this on the LKML, and eventually Linus commented "We don't fix broken hardware." True enough, the SMI bus was vomitous (unbalanced, open-drain). But I'm older than Linus, and remember when software was meant to fix hardware!
So I just manually patched kernel source for ~5 years. I didn't and don't mind, at least I had source to patch. But I gave up on reporting anything to the LKML "if it boots, it's perfect".
Does all this touchy-feely psychobabble mean a shift in kernel philosphy away from the "speed at all costs" into something perhaps more reliability based?
there is no storm. Clinton had a right wing media machine who wanted to shut down the couple of progressive policies he had (Clinton was pretty right wing, but there was a change Hilary was going to give us single payer healthcare before she went full on Republican lite).
The media doesn't harp on Trump/Stormy because the left don't care (it was consensual). The Right are looking the other way because Trump's doing what they want (tax cuts for corps & well to do, regulation cuts, etc). They're not going to rally their base against him since he's one of theirs. If Trump ever tried to make good on those promises of Universal Healthcare you'd see a very, very different reaction from the right wing press.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
it's because the left can't really attack him for consensual sex (that's not a bad thing to the left) and the right wing press doesn't care what he does so long as he keeps doing their economic agenda (low taxes for corporations, cut regulations, etc).
If Trump every seriously tried to deliver on the progressive promises he made he'd be shut down, just like Clinton was when he signaled he might do single payer.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I met a lady who said something like that. But she "had her own definition of racism". I cut her to the quick and asked if it applied to the minority group of white people in South Africa. That gave her pause and she mentioned she never thought of that and it really ended the conversation. She's more or less an ok person, she just works with a lot of poor black kids from broken homes. It's tough being a social worker.
But I've ALSO met people that honestly believe in the most heinous of demonized strawman the democrats like to punch about. Forced sterilization, racial superiority, IQ test requirements for voting, a pro-dictatorship stance. Really, there's ~150 million on both sides, you're sure to find crackpots if you go look for them.
No, the idea that ("Marginalized people" cannot be guilty of oppressing "non-marginalized people" no matter how they behave.) is not a mainstream principle for Democrats. (And where did this trend of calling them "the left" come from?). But hey, yeah, Mike you're absolutely correct that some of the wing-nuts have this absolutely shit-for-brains mentality. Try not to cast too many stones though because if you want I can dredge out a WHOLE lot of less-than-mentally-sound examples of republicans. Come off it dude, attacking the crazy people in the other party is shooting fish in a barrel. Even the slightly-less-wing-nutty people like AmiMojo won't stand by those sort of statements.
But you're also being lazy. You could have pointed out that the idea that reverse racism is a separate thing from good 'ol regular racism is an example of "you can't be racist against white people". (It's not. Being racist against white people is still racism. There is no such thing as "reverse racism" as it is entirely and wholly consumed by the term "racism". But people still invented the term because in their heads racism is only against their people.) If you really wanted to go above and beyond you'd go find a state rep or city official who said something stupid and give the democrats a black eye. They exist out there. And we need to self-police. Part of that is pointing them out. You're way more motivated to do that than I am. So, like, come on dude, put in the effort.
The cancer has taken root.
The purple haired trigger glassed assholes will bring in their committees, indulge in endless debates, run oppression Olympics, and commits will grind to a halt.
I'm out.
OpenBSD is still safe.