Linux kernel devs adopt Bill and Ted's excellent code of conduct The Linux kernel development community and its leader Linus Torvalds are both famously feisty: strong words are often exchanged on the Linux Kernel Mailing List, while Linux Lord Linus Torvalds is seldom shy of speaking his mind. Of late, however, Torvalds has copped some criticism for being a little too strident, perhaps …
"If however, anyone feels personally abused, threatened, or otherwise uncomfortable due to this process, that is not acceptable."
Given how little it takes for some people to feel uncomfortable, I assume that is not intended to be taken literally (it really couldn't be). Actually, given history of kernel lists and Linus' past behaviour, I suspect it's not intended to be taken seriously at all.
"If however, anyone feels personally abused, threatened, or otherwise uncomfortable due to this process, that is not acceptable."
Sounds progressive, except when carried too far...
"“Freedom of speech, in a space that aims to be as inclusive as possible, can be interpreted as hate speech,” the bill reads."
I call bullshit on all these "statements of conduct" that vainly hope to cater to or fend off every individual's interpretation of the moment. Every group is by definition made up of individuals, with their own usually divergent truths and self-prejudices held dear. Disagreements, disappointments, and often resulting in someone blaming someone for those.
If someone's not acting with a project's best interests at heart tell them so, and why. If someone lays an egg on a mail-list ask them to restate "more usefully". We've all seen even neutral plain prose interactions fail completely due to 'feelings'. And there is usually no mystery to those who have been following along, rather than those jumping in with pitchforks and blazing torches.
Quite amazing this progression, that since we are all supposed to be mature adults, we can't act on that basis without worrying someone's feelings will come up 'hurt'. Latitude and understanding from all parties in a conversation is what's required.
If you are more interested in telling everyone you are feeling hurt than you are in getting the subject at hand worked out, ain't no statement of conduct going to help.
"Quite amazing this progression, that since we are all supposed to be mature adults,"
We are, but there will always be a number of people who, for example, threaten to rape women with whom they disagree, sometimes going so far as to prove they know where said women live.
From experience, if you don't have a statement of conduct or some such, when you express the opinion that this is unacceptable behaviour, they claim that there is nothing written saying it's not acceptable and that their free speech makes it acceptable to behave like this. A written, unambiguous statement is sadly necessary; it won't stop them, but violators can be pointed at it and excommunicated.
In my experience codes of conduct lead to the group being led by the most fragile personalities with the thinnest skins and no backbone. Linux is more important than an atheist convention and shouldn't give in to the bullying of the "oppressed".
Actual, credible threats are never tolerated, even when there is no code of conduct. They're illegal for a reason, nomatter what the law says about "free speech". Far more common is that people cry "harassment" when a lot of people simply disagree with them.
... that Linus holds himself to high standards as well, not just criticizes others' people patches. For example, this message posted 3 days ago on LKML:
So my patch was obviously wrong, and I should feel bad for suggesting it. I'm a moron, and my expectations that "pte_modify()" would just take the accessed bit from the vm_page_prot field was stupid and wrong.
Mel's patch is the right thing to do.
Linus
Begging your pardon, but I do not where the withering attack on his intelligence is. Nor do I see any overt contempt of coding skills. Finally, there is no invitation to become a pizza deliverer.
I agree that it is something that Linus acknowledges an error, but he does so with a lot less flame and brimstone than he gives others, which tells me that if he had taken that approach to criticizing other people's contributions, we wouldn't even be reading this article.
Good show Linus, you've proven that you know how to behave civilly. Now do that with other people and you're golden.
Begging your pardon, but I do not where the withering attack on his intelligence is. Nor do I see any overt contempt of coding skills. Finally, there is no invitation to become a pizza deliverer.
He may well have gone that route, verbally, seeing as the object of his ire (himself) was in the same room as the one expressing that ire (himself).
It'd be kind of weird if he emailed a huge flame, addressed to himself, into lkml. That he didn't doesn't mean there was no brimstone, just that he didn't need email to communicate it (which he does with other contributors).
Not saying that the way Linus behaves is necessarily right, simply that what you're saying is wrong as it misses a few logistical points.
Every time I have read about Linus addressing mails to someone before, it was for his absolutely unacceptable attitude as far as professional communication is concerned.
It would appear that some of his fans here do not accept that, but it remains that he seriously needs to change his ways when addressing people who might have made mistakes or done something he considers as a mistake. If this publication is a step in that direction, then good for everyone, but nobody can deny that a step needs to be taken.
Every time I have read about Linus addressing mails to someone before, it was for his absolutely unacceptable attitude as far as professional communication is concerned.
Do you follow the kernel dev mailing lists? There's some interesting reading, but most of it isn't news worthy. The stuff that makes the news is normally a flame, but the majority of the emails you'll see over there don't even come close.
It's like judging an entire (small) country based on what you've seen about it in the news. You'll likely only have seen the very best (or worst) of what someone else has judged news-worthy.
Generally speaking, making _a_ mistake isn't enough to get flamed. It's continually making the same mistake, or arguing that you're right and everybody else needs to change that gets you flamed.
I'm not saying it's the right way to approach it, but it's hardly as black and white as you've painted it
He then wraps up by throwing the switch to absurdity:
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."
What's absurd about that? Seems like common sense.
Linus Torvalds has not been great in the past. There is no way I would ever consider working on Linux while he has his rants and I'm sure I'm not the only one.
If, however, he changed, and stopped using "colourful metaphors", one-finger salutes and suchlike, perhaps more developers might contribute, and that could extend to open source in general which does tend to get tarred with the same brush to an extent.
If he holds to what has been said there then this has got to be a good thing for open source software. Hence the icon. Cheers!
there is nothing to stop any whiner from starting their own distro (Hugbox Linux, anyone?), or even forking the kernel. If there is a supply of thin-skinned developers desperate to give their considerable talents to Linux, they would have found a way.
I've not contributed, because the learning curve is too steep, and I suspect this is true for those who claim it's the environment that puts them off. When I read the mailing lists I see an environment where good code matters and people are passionate about what they do. I've worked in places like that, and it's only the bad coders who can't hack it (pun not intended).
... is that many people take offence when their mistakes are highlighted, or their views are challenged, however well constructed the counter-argument is.
In essence, some people behave badly when shown to be wrong - especially in public - and this is exacerbated if the tone is also inflammatory too.
Removing the inflammatory nature of the response does not guarantee that the recipient of the message will hear it any better or respond in a positive manner, but it does at least mean the conversation can be kept to the facts rather than focusing on the emotive language.
In addition to being mindful of how we deliver messages, it is equally incumbent on those receiving them to give them appropriate consideration. Note - I'm not saying every counter-argument is valid and that you should change your view on the basis of someone else s perspective - but I'm am suggesting that... drum roll.... you might actually be wrong.
It is how we deal with being wrong that is a mark of person - to do an about turn of your view because a better alternative was proposed is a measure of a persons capability and maturity, not of weakness.
Dear AC,
I think you nailed it.
"""In essence, some people behave badly when shown to be wrong - especially in public - and this is exacerbated if the tone is also inflammatory too."""
Some people just can not be helped.
And this is the reason why we have an invasion of the Politically Correct, and as I always say, the Political Correctness, one of these days is going to kill us all.
As someone who conducts code reviews, there is no need to bad mouth people's efforts.
A code review should involve the contributors and be a dialogue explaining why/how something is changing and how that fits within the design and architecture. The accountable person considers this thinking and works with the contributors to guide them to taking the vision forward.
That sounds like middle management waffle, but it's still better than standing on a chair/desk and screaming at people telling them how useless they are. In that scenario no-one wins and the only achievement is higher blood pressure.
Unfortunately I've run across people that just won't listen until you get loud. Usually it is not good for the team or for the individuals directly involved. Generally is sows discord and someone (who might be talented but clueless) ends up leaving. However, I have seen successful teams that operated on "wall to wall counseling" methods. It takes a special touch to keep the lid on long term, but can have excellent results.
---- I have a spare Dell XPS that blew up after Vista, but the hard drive is fried... I've never forgiven M$ or Dell for the Vista lies, so it'd fitting that this laptop should be the first one with Linux!
---- Is there a small but fully functional version of Linux that will sit on a 8GB / 16GB USB-memory-key and boot without a working hard drive? If yes, any download links?
---- I will use the box to study languages, its just needs to have a VLC like player and a PDF viewer... But if it has Wine obviously that'd be great too. Cheers!
To answer your question: Almost any distro (distribution, IE version) will fit on a 16/32GB thumb drive. I have found Linux Mint to be one of the most easy-to-use (and pretty) distros out of the box. It does come with a media player, and I believe a PDF viewer and Wine is a fairly simple install.
takes a big man to recognize something can be improved about oneself and be public about it.
keep the uncompromising technical excellence. lose some of the rudeness. but keep enough to politely tell someone to take a long walk off a short pier when warranted.
p.s. naming one of my favorite programs, git, after his own foibles shows he already has a good sense of humor & perspective.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
