"For us that means paychecks!"
For many that means lack of paycheques.
16426 posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
"Is your defense of Linus based on extensive observation of him, or just your angry emotions reacting to his detractors?"
I made the point in an earlier posts that business as usual doesn't make headlines. We thus get a reaction based not on business as usual but from the exceptions.
Having spent a good many years dealing with some members of the human race at the worst I've learned not to judge the general by the worst exceptions.
"Although describing even minor mistakes with crackling vituperation does seem a bit on the er, emotional side."
As has been pointed out here a number of times the vituperation only comes in the most egregious situations where the developer hasn't responded to more gentle persuasion. Oddly enough neither el Reg nor anyone else posts regular articles on the lines of "Linus politely rejects a patch". Or maybe not oddly because it would quickly get boring.
"In your view, bullying people for their gender and sexuality is not just OK but somehow morally *necessary* as a badge of belonging."
I think the objection is to those who bully others who are simply using long-accepted parts of the English language. Personally, as a male, I suppose I would be entitled to object to "my" gender-specific pronouns being used as non-specific* but it's been that way for a long time so I just accept it. And should my wife object if a customer service person (as like as not female) address us as "you guys"? Personally I find the latter a little over-familiar in most contexts but again it's a generally accepted modern usage so I have to take it in my stride.
The real problem as I see it is the like of the master/slave row. Trying to rewrite much-used technical terminology is just asking for trouble. The next step in that direction would be to argue about the terms used for handedness of threads - or even the very concept of them being handed.
*They/their seems fairly natural to me, especially used in a context where the gender or even number of those referred ti is unknown. It was in fairly common use when I was young but I think the grammar zealots consider it an incorrect use of the plural although they seem to consider what has now become standard use of the plural for 2nd person. Actually I think so-called plurality in English is rather more complex than the grammar zealots realise but over the years I've dropped they/their but I'm tending to use it more.
"I can't think of any environment where being so abusive to your subordinates is allowed."
But can you also think of any other product on such a scale developed in that way? From TFA "10,000 developers from more than 1,200 organizations worldwide" all of whom are self-selected and over whom Linus has none of the conventional managerial options: he doesn't hire or fire (although he does have the option of refusing patches which isn't quite the same thing). He doesn't write annual reviews, recommend or withhold raises or promotions or award bonuses.
One has to conclude that having held that process together over so many years to produce a successful product he might be doing something right.
"I hope this is a success for Linus Torvalds and linux."
I also hope normal service is resumed as soon as someone tries to slip some nonsense into the kernel and won't take a polite "no" for an answer. The Code of Conduct referenced includes something about accepting constructive criticism. AFAICS the outbursts have followed failures of that..
"Obviously they'd rather any slightly disgruntled patient makes a formal complaint every single time about every single thing, rather than have them just grumbling ineffectually to their friends."
Or they'd rather have ineffectual complaints than be roasted on social media which seems to be about the only thing that has an effect these days.
Surely just shutting down any suggestion of change is closer to "totalatarian"?
The word you're looking for is "consistent".
In tech-speak words have specific meanings. They may have been imported from some other context by analogy but once imported they acquire a new significance and it becomes important that they're used consistently. Unless we have consistency it becomes impossible to communicate. That means that if I ever used the term "slave" in documentation anyone reading it then, now or at some point in the future would know exactly what I meant. Even if we were to coin a new term now and use it in the future it would in no way remove the need for anyone entering the field in the future learning what the term "slave" meant in that context; there's too many examples of it being used in that precise, technological sense to do without it.
Your opening sentence is a perfect example of the pitfalls that are caused by lack of precision. It's clear from the fact that you think "replica" is equivalent in meaning to "slave" whereas they actually mean two different things. To try to impose the one term in place of the other would indeed be buggering about with the terminology if not with the actual language.
Perhaps you've wandered into this conversation from marketing or management where precision of expression is a disadvantage, exposing as it does an absence of meaning.
"Like-it-or not, if you have a strong opinion on EU membership, you're probably in a minority amongst the general electorate."
This is true. It's the economic consequences of leaving that will inevitable fall on the majority and Leave, despite running a major Project Fear campaign of their own, called drawing attention to those "Project Fear".
"Tactically it's awful, as it hands the EU negotiators the option to offer nothing"
Do you still not understand despite watching the process so far? The "it" in your statement was the insistence by Leavers on leaving whatever the consequences. Why should the EU negotiators offer anything?
"We reached a result.
We implement the result."
Which was, by a small majority, that people wanted to leave the EU. There was no indication what they wanted to do instead. There was no indication whether they'd still want to leave if it cost them their job, if it reduced the quality of health care by denying the NHS staff (even if £350 million a day was really available it wouldn't help if there weren't enough UK staff) or if it cut pensions and benefits as a result of a contracting economy.
So, how does a responsible government react? How does any business react to an ill-constructed requirement? It tries to put in some detail. It does feasibility studies. None of that happened. Cameron stood aside. The gung-ho leavers stood aside from taking his position. The resulting half-arsed government tried to push ahead blindly without even determining what was the legal way of doing so*, let alone looking at practicalities. As a result the outcome is looking worse and worse.
*Remember that it took a citizen to bring the matter to court to determine that. She was vilified by Leavers who still haven't even grasped that without that a court could have come along now and had the entire invocation of Article 50 declared illegal for lack of Parliamentary consent. In fact, it's a pity she did take that step as it would have been a useful brake no have invoked now.
"We agreed that the result would be implemented"
Actually no. It was an advisory vote and I doubt even its proponents had any workable idea as to how to implement it or even expected to win it. AFAICS they were just expecting Cameron to stay on and implement it when they won. The panic when it fell to them was evident. Those who stepped up to the plate failed, those who stood on the sidelines shouting have yet again, last week, ducked out of giving is their view of how to do it, apparently out of fear it would be torn to pieces.
And for the remoaners who keep going on about "Stupid Brexiteers didn't know what they were voting for...waaah!" - NEITHER DID YOU!
That's true. We didn't know what Brexiteers voted for for the simple reason that they didn't all seem to vote for the same thing. And we still don't know what they voted for.
What's worse, whatever they, as individuals, voted for, they didn't know what they were going to get because, as supplicants, it wasn't going to be in their hands. That we did know.
What we voted for was quite clear: the status quo.
"So I'd say we're stuck with referendums on major EU issues now. "
If we leave the only future EU issue would be about rejoining. And, just as with leaving, it would be on the EU's terms because, as with the existing fiasco, beggars can't be choosers. So preventing EU mission-creep would have to be accepted if/when we want back in.
"Can you see any MP who voted against the motion to leave the EU surviving the next election if his constituency voted to leave?"
Yes, once it had been clear what the consequences would be for the constituency.
But can you see any MP who voted to leave surviving the next election once the consequences of leaving are experienced?
"If the peoples' representatives ask the people for direction, then they follow the instruction they get back from the people."
The only sensible conclusion to draw from the result was "we're not sure".
However, taking the result as an advisory vote to leave the responsible thing would have been to start a proper project, starting with a feasibility study and to take a responsible decision, based on that, as to whether to continue. In effect we're now seeing the results of that feasibility study. Would a responsible government go on to the next phase in the light of those results?
I was going to point out "fewer" rather than "less"
It's one of those things that people say because someone read it somewhere written by someone who heard someone say it because they'd read it somewhere....which just goes back to someone writing it originally just because they thought it should work that way. JRM and Bojo are just the sort of persons who would probably stand by it.
Tell me, is 3 fewer or less than half a dozen?
"Pervasive surveillance and near unlimited police powers with no accountability. HO doesn't have it's s**t together."
In the HO's view that's where it definitely does have its s**t together. And it wants to keep it that way so the sooner we can get out of the jurisdiction the ECJ and preferably the ECHR the better as far as they're concerned.
First off, a LOT of those jobs are set to be automated away.
Some. Others not. One of the problems with automating low paid jobs is that you spend money up-front to make savings which, by definition, must be small.
Secondly, isn't anyone concerned that "youth these days" [*] do not want to get their hands dirty?"
Once the economy can't afford to pay out as much in benefits they may find out that they're not given the option; come October they get sent to pick spuds, in January daffs etc.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019