Hidden wisdom
Long time ago I captured a comment from Usenet I thought useful:
"There's no winners here, just the sad trolling the bad trolling the mad. I call Cripple Fight on this."
Late last month, open-source contributor Raymond Nicholson proposed a change to the manual for glibc, the GNU implementation of the C programming language's standard library, to remove "the abortion joke," which accompanied the explanation of libc's abort() function. Nicholson said: "The joke does not provide any useful …
I can see people wanting to avoid politically sensitive jokes, but this...
"O'Donnell recommended avoiding jokes altogether, a position supported by many of those weighing in on the issue."
...is hard to interpret as anything but another indication of the ongoing decline of the software industry.
Not just the industry but civilization. Everyone takes everything too seriously, however humor isn't universal so some will be offended. To those... if it offends you, don't look. If one is of religious ilk, then "if thy eye offends thee, pluck it out".
A pox on political correctness....
I once got a call from an upset user, who complained that the departmental server in their office area kept showing messages about dead children. She'd had a family tragedy recently and, very understandably, the messages were distressing her.
The server console messages in question were of the form "child process nnn died". I explained what they meant and that they were were quite normal. I declined her request to rewrite the operating system, but I adjusted the display settings and affixed a label "Dumb terminal - brightness has been turned down".
I have written software at some point for a client then later just happened to meet someone who worked there at the time and got to see my code - when we realized this, you know what was first thing he mentioned? Not that the code was shit or that it was great, no. "Your comments were quite funny you know..." Humour is part of who we are and therefore of what we make. It needs to stay!
"if thy eye offends thee, pluck it out"
I believe you will find that the context for that statement gives it quite a different meaning than the one you gave it. It was part of the sermon on the mount in which Jesus was defining adultery, so "offending" in this sense would be leading one to commit adultery and not getting upset about lame jokes.
humor isn't universal so some will be offended.
There is a few quotes I can pull out of the bag here....
1) offence is never given, only taken.
but my favourite is from a notorious very non political correct comedian when asked about if he worried about offending people....
2) Every joke will offend somebody somewhere, so consider the jokes YOU find offensive as tax on the ones you find funny.
Beer, well, he owned a very famous northern comedy club named after his favourite brand of smokes.
Not just the industry but civilization. Everyone takes everything too seriously, however humor isn't universal so some will be offended. To those... if it offends you, don't look. If one is of religious ilk, then "if thy eye offends thee, pluck it out".
A pox on political correctness....
Exactly!
A joke that doesn't offend anyone isn't funny!
...but you don't have to take my word for it, because Benign Violation Theory does a much better job of expanding on that concept.
You can read the original paper here:
http://leeds-faculty.colorado.edu/mcgrawp/pdf/mcgraw.warren.2010.pdf
Dig even deeper, here:
http://leeds-faculty.colorado.edu/mcgrawp/Benign_Violation_Theory.html
TL:DR? Here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theories_of_humor#Benign_violation_theory
@JohnFen
>> ...is hard to interpret as anything but another indication of the ongoing decline of the software industry.
I think you mean society as a whole.
Remember humor is dangerously subversive to SJW as it doesn't allow them to control the language, and an SJW needs to control language to set the narrative so they can't achieve power without opposition.
Having said that, in my humble opinion anyone ever butt-hurt by such an obvious joke is not fit for purpose.
Man pages on Linux have been on a nearly consistent decline relative to the number of features added to the system. As authors of Linux utilities depend more on web based documentation, man pages have become more and more horrifying in quality.
Let’s also make clear that there are many of us who believe Stallman should simply be muted and censored as his behavior is generally reprehensible. I have actually experienced opposition to use of LGPL code by legal teams because they feared being associated in any way with such an oaf. I do not discount the contributions made by Stallman, but I believe his damage to the GNU world far outweighs the benefits at this time. He clearly marks everything he touches as questionable with regards to professionalism.
As to jokes in man pages. This can be saved for flame wars in forums. There is no benefit to adding them to documentation that should be free of anything other that empirical data unless positing a theory with regards to appropriate use. For example “I would recommend use of an alternative function as the algorithm used in this one may prove questionable with regards to data security.”
I have no opionion regarding the specific joke in question as I see it as lacking the depth necessary to make it entertaining. I see it as offering no more engaging value than the labeling of a manhole cover. But I also believe that even if it were a funny joke, it’s better for the forums.
The originators of the free software culture which you enjoy today had heard of a thing called satire and realised every actor in society should act wisely and with responsibility. How prescient. Where has that wisdom gone?
We don't have essays and references to that father of satire Juvenal in man pages but we do have the free (recognise the word?) spirit of contempt for restrictive regulation. Who are you or anybody else to 'decide' on the grounds that 'it's your opinion and that's what matters' to deface an important document. Dyking out perfectly appropriate observations is the actions of a miserable self-appointed Bowdleriser. Do tell us exactly which silent and oppressed group you purport to be acting for.
You're always free to fork the man pages. That's what freedom is. You live in a software society made possible by people like Stallman. Fork or f**k-off.
For those readers who are slow on the uptake, some bright minds brought two things to the late 20th century and now the 21st century:
1 A vision of free software. LECTOR SI MONUMENTUM REQUIRIS CIRCUMSPICE That was Sir Christopher Wren's epitaph. Now look around you and you'll see free software everywhere. And how much poorer would we be without it?
2 A commitment to a progressive, cooperative, energetic society that continually built on the foundations of previous generations.
Perhaps you should educate yourself by starting with Ian Hislop giving the 2016 Orwell lecture (Available for free on YT. It's a brilliant summary of all the issues surrounding this silly spat. )
No need to fork the man pages - switch to FreeBSD. Whilst often understaffed, they still view them as important.
As for the 'joke' - not offensive. Also, not funny - just a paranoid rant masking as humor. It is also confusing at first glance, advising that the function may not be recommended in the future.
FreeBSD recently adopted an appallingly bad code of conduct. The problems aren't as much with what it says, as what it doesn't. It has no transparency. There is no requirement that charges be publicly announced (in an anonymized fashion). There is no provision for defense. There is no requirement for the defendant to be informed that a charge is pending against them, so they are unable to plan our mount a defense. After the fact, appeals are allowed only to a tiny subset of penalties. Appeals are handled by the same committee. There is no way to appeal to a higher, or different, authority.
> No need to fork the man pages - switch to FreeBSD. Whilst often understaffed,
> they still view them as important.
> As for the 'joke' - not offensive.....
Whilst on the subject of FreeBSD documentation standards, and jokes in man pages..... :
PCIB(4) FreeBSD Kernel Interfaces Manual PCIB(4)
NAME
pcib - PCI bridge driver
SYNOPSIS
To compile this driver into the kernel, place the following line in your kernel configuration file:
device pci
DESCRIPTION
The pcib driver provides for host and PCI bridges in a PCI system.
BUGS
This man page is too short.
FreeBSD 12.0-CURRENT January 18, 2008 FreeBSD 12.0-CURRENT
> documentation that should be free of anything other that empirical data
says whom?
Fuck off, I'll put whatever I want in documentation I create on my own time, which is generally what most GNU software is.
> Shouldn’t quality and professionalism be the issue?
Most GNU-based software is being created by people who are not being paid, therefore, by definition, it is not professional software, it is a hobby, or even a lifestyle, but not a profession. Which is not to say that some, or many, of the contributors are not professional, many of them are professional developers. However, they are not doing GNU contributions as a profession.
Let’s also make clear that there are many of us who believe Stallman should simply be muted and censored as his behavior is generally reprehensible.
So you believe that censorship is acceptable behavior? I happen to think it can be, in one specific set of circumstances.
Censorship of others is at best morally questionable: even when their statements appear reprehensible to the rest of us, logically countering them is generally much more productive.
However, self-censorship is a very useful practice, as it can preserve one's reputation and prevent foot-in-mouth disease. Give it a try, won't you?
Totally beside the point of this discussion of course, but I have been using GNU software for two decades and don't think I've ever come across a worse documentation system than info. The browser is so unusable that I'd actually virtually forgotten that "info" exists - after an initial struggle to see the logic I've always just used such man pages as are available rather than waste time trying to untangle the writhings of the tortured mind that created the info browser!
I disagree with you profoundly. Info is likely the most useful and user friendly doc system there is. What it isn't is beginner friendly; being a sophisticated system, it takes time and effort to learn and get used to. Examples of its features include typing "i" followed by a word to look up that word in the index/indices, moving directly to the page where it is defined; "u" to go to the heierarchically containing page. There are hyperlinks and search facilities.
Indeed, it is hard to believe that Info is older than HTML, given how many of its features are missing from HTML.
"I disagree with you profoundly. Info is likely the most useful and user friendly doc system there is. What it isn't is beginner friendly; being a sophisticated system, it takes time and effort to learn and get used to. "
Alas, you contradict yourself.
User friendly means it's also friendly for beginners.
Info is not the only culprit here, but one really does need to recognise where "the competition" has the edge.
>Let’s also make clear that there are many of us who believe Stallman should simply be muted and censored as his behavior is generally reprehensible.
Really? That term "many of us" is in my experience a cheap attempt at invoking authority by a claimed majority. Unless you can document that I must declare you a bald faced liar. Also:
>I have actually experienced opposition to use of LGPL code by legal teams because they feared being associated in any way with such an oaf.
Really now, have you? I work in law and it is never my job to oppose a document because it could be associated by a person who has been called an oaf on the Internet. Nor have I ever heard my colleagues do so either. That simply is not our job. Again I must ask you to document your claims carefully, or I shall assume you are a shameless serial liar.
Doesn't informative and _instantly memorable_ documentation constitute professional quality? Bit better than than a dry description of enforced descheduling which barely references the offending word - note that "Aborting" is a logical derivative of the function abort(), so it's pretty hard to document the function without using that word somewhere .... and I really appreciate this stuff being documented!
That said, no room for gratuitously offence content, and even though I appreciate freedom etc. I do wish that we could standardi[sz]e on one spelling convention for technical work .... sadly, probably American because it is the dominant branch ... I often get caught-out by UK-origin CLI commands that use my native language (`--colour` ...) because 97% of the time it's the American spelling
I would expect that any software developer or technical author who had written that joke into their software document at work, for their customers to read would probably be having a difficult conversation with their boss afterwards...
However, as I understand it, one of the aims of GNU software is to make a political stance about freedom of software, its source and its documentation, and in that respect this line of text is very much on message.
Whats next? break everyone existing code by renaming the function from abort() to terminate()?
> A complete false equivalence, and you know it.
All snark has a kernel of truth to it, and this is no different. There have been good faith yet still insane requests for similar renames in the past.