Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
kdbus in the kernel
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 8, 9, 10 ... 25, 26, 27  Next  
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Kernel & Hardware
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Naib
Watchman
Watchman


Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 5597
Location: Removed by Neddy

PostPosted: Sun Feb 22, 2015 11:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

tld wrote:
Anon-E-moose wrote:
ct85711, it's the same thing that was done with justifying sysd.

First it was marvelously fast boot up times, then when it only proved marginally faster in many cases,
that quit being touted and other improvements were pushed in it's place.
Notice that fast boot times is hardly ever used as justification for sysd nowadays.

In the world of having arguments it's called "moving the goal posts" so as to avoid "losing the argument".

Bingo...everything these folks dish out ends up being a cure in search of a disease...and not a nice cure either...more the chemotherapy variety...

Tom
Same thing with paludis. The problem is systemd sort of functions how svchost does on windows as well as how services.exe. Windows and Linux aim to get a very similar job done (boot the system up into a definable state) but differently. Windows method works (you may argue that how it manages it is rubbish but that doesn't actually negate the fact it does work), linux method works (and equally windows people cannot comprehend the apparent haphazardness of it and perceive the existence of a million and one distro's as proof linux doesn't work - negating the fact pretty much all the distro's are quite well aligned since the early 00's when libc patches and updates became more frequent...)
if there is an influx of ex-windows programmers... systemd makes more sense to them

if you concentrate on counter-arguing what systemd is it holds the discussion point, to a larger audience, on what systemd does, allowing the systemd proponents to argue how systemd does foo (be it by spinning the truth or discussion around perceived issues).The discussion needs to equally shift to what other init's do, how their architecture protects against certain things.

Same with kdbus. Concentrate on what it isn't doing or is doing poorly and it will keep morphing to "correct" the perceived weaknesses or redefining itself to blank out that which cannot be perceived. Push the agenda of userland application bus
_________________
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter
Great Britain is a republic, with a hereditary president, while the United States is a monarchy with an elective king
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
steveL
Watchman
Watchman


Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery

PostPosted: Sun Feb 22, 2015 12:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Naib wrote:
Same with kdbus. Concentrate on what it isn't doing or is doing poorly and it will keep morphing to "correct" the perceived weaknesses or redefining itself to blank out that which cannot be perceived. Push the agenda of userland application bus

Yes, but at some point technology has to function; you're talking about slipping one past computer programmers in their domain of expertise, not selling sausages to drunk people at a fair.

Someone quoted somebody or the other in one of these threads; something to do with public relations doesn't work with technology, because at some point technology has to face nature.

As the systemdidiots keep changing their stance, never arguing both sides in the same discussion, but both sides across the debate, so more and more people are going to get fed up of it. Especially kernel coders.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Shamus397
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 03 Apr 2005
Posts: 216
Location: Ur-th

PostPosted: Wed Mar 11, 2015 12:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

An "interesting" patch made its way into the kernel recently, written by Greg KH: http://ostatic.com/blog/greg-k-h-tries-to-code-linus-behavior

Also, version 4 of Greg K H's ill-conceived kdbus hits the LKML: https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/3/9/340
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Anon-E-moose
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 3793
Location: Dallas area

PostPosted: Wed Mar 11, 2015 1:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
It continues by saying that while the writers do not wish the quality of the kernel code to decrease but if anyone "feels personally abused, threatened, or otherwise uncomfortable due to this process" they should write the Linux Foundation and file a complaint. The Linux Foundation Technical Advisory Board will then take action to resolve the issue.


I predict that next up will be more whining from Kay and LP, "wah, wah, they're saying things about us".
Along with GKH complaining about their sloppy, incomplete and dangerous kdbus not being included in the kernel.

The funny thing is, I've seen as much or more abuse from Kay, LP and GKH as from Linus. Talk about the pot and the kettle.
_________________
Asus m5a99fx, FX 8320 - nouveau & radeon, oss4
Acer laptop E5-575, i3-7100u - i965, alsa
---both---
5.0.13 zen kernel, profile 17.0 (no-pie) amd64-no-multilib
gcc 8.2.0, eudev, openrc, openbox, palemoon
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
depontius
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 05 May 2004
Posts: 3381

PostPosted: Wed Mar 11, 2015 4:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Shamus397 wrote:
An "interesting" patch made its way into the kernel recently, written by Greg KH: http://ostatic.com/blog/greg-k-h-tries-to-code-linus-behavior


I wonder if the "Code of Contuct" or "Conflict Resolution" will apply when invoked by those racally systemd-haters, or if it's really only there for systemd-promoters.
_________________
.sigs waste space and bandwidth
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
steveL
Watchman
Watchman


Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery

PostPosted: Wed Mar 11, 2015 4:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oh God not another "technical" advisory committee that is in fact a mechanism of political control.

I feel sorry for whoever gets the wrong side of them.. sounds like a mish-mash of Council and devrel, neither of which work at what they take on in direct contravention of their mandate and the Code of Conduct.

I suppose from their perspective, they're just doing to the kernel what they did to debilian, which was apparently a test-run.

Hmm wonder if they think they've already done Gentoo, only us mopes don't know about it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
depontius
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 05 May 2004
Posts: 3381

PostPosted: Wed Mar 11, 2015 4:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

steveL wrote:
Hmm wonder if they think they've already done Gentoo, only us mopes don't know about it.


I think they're biding their time. At the moment, taking on Gentoo is also sort-of taking on Google, and they've probably figured out that they're not really up to that, no matter that they've taken over everyone else but Slackware.

Hmmmm....
As the "old guard" retrenches to Gentoo and Slackware, and considering moving to BSD, I wonder if there's any fear of completely alienating them. The question here is, what would really happen if the old guard picked up and left Linux. What would happen if the Linux kernel were really in the hands of Linus and the systemd crowd, without the old guard shoring things up?
_________________
.sigs waste space and bandwidth
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
steveL
Watchman
Watchman


Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery

PostPosted: Wed Mar 11, 2015 6:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

depontius wrote:
As the "old guard" retrenches to Gentoo and Slackware, and considering moving to BSD, I wonder if there's any fear of completely alienating them. The question here is, what would really happen if the old guard picked up and left Linux. What would happen if the Linux kernel were really in the hands of Linus and the systemd crowd, without the old guard shoring things up?

Then we'd have lost, by ceding the ground to them, instead of carrying on to show why Linux was built in the Unix tradition, and no other.

Sure, Linux would lose out too, but why spend decades bringing up another GPL sourcebase, just so preppy can go to the moon?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NeddySeagoon
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Posts: 42847
Location: 56N 3W

PostPosted: Wed Mar 11, 2015 7:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

depontius,

Moving to BSD is not a long term solution.
Turing Linux into windows needs to be resisted by keeping the old codebase alive and in use.
I don't have much confidence that the systemd borg can be stopped or reversed any time soon and as others have said, reversing the damage will be a huge undertaking as so much needs to be switched at once - everything that systemd has engulfed. Think of the minicomputer revolution being replayed all over again, where Microsoft and Red Hat take the place of say, Apollo and DEC, for all the same reasons.

If Linux is lost to systemd and the 'old guard' move to BSD, it will only be a matter of time before BSD gets attractive enough for the process to be repeated on BSD. Then where do we go?
We stick to Linux and make it work because there are no other long term options.
_________________
Regards,

NeddySeagoon

Computer users fall into two groups:-
those that do backups
those that have never had a hard drive fail.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
steveL
Watchman
Watchman


Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery

PostPosted: Wed Mar 11, 2015 8:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

NeddySeagoon wrote:
Moving to BSD is not a long term solution.
Turning Linux into windows needs to be resisted by keeping the old codebase alive and in use.

Agreed.
Quote:
I don't have much confidence that the systemd borg can be stopped or reversed any time soon and as others have said, reversing the damage will be a huge undertaking as so much needs to be switched at once - everything that systemd has engulfed.

I think it only looks that way when seen from the perspective of all those borked dependency specifiers, which isn't actually that big a deal in the overall scheme of things.

Upstream programmers don't target one OS, let alone one OS-specific init-system.

Though it does mean some work on the part of the distros or their users, more usually, to find the old code repo, and get rid of technical pollution[1], that's really the distros shooting themselves in the foot. Many aren't anything more than "white-labelled" rebadges in any case, so about as much contribution in code terms imo, as the web-2.0 virtual hosting salesmen make to the infra of the web; ie: none.

From their perspective, it's just a business, and business is led by sales, which are led by fashion, not sense. From a community perspective, as best I can see, they're not-very-useful middlemen in any case, so why bother trying to win a marketing war?

As you said, just keep using the existing codebases which work, and don't try to lock us in, and patch those in collaboration with other distros who turned down the kool-aid, and most importantly, their users.

We'll have an easier time of it, as we allow the strengths of a diverse ecosystem to work for us, rather than spending all our time putting out fires brought on by megalomania and the consequent desire to control everything and everyone, which leads systemdiots to try and argue for, and implement, a monoculture built on repression of the underlying craft. Our problems will be localised.

[1] It's technical "pollution" because the dependency specifiers are deliberately borked so existing implementations are broken.
This is done on the pretext that systemd has swallowed the existing project, and then crippled it a couple of versions later so it will only work on a systemd-pid1 machine (poor thing).

The reason it is borked, is that if systemd provides the functionality as part of its package (of so many projects..), then there is no reason at all to take over the dependency namespace. Just depend on systemd instead, for the packages moving to Lennux, and leave the existing package name for its current usage.

After all that's not a fork, as the "new" project is.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ovitters
n00b
n00b


Joined: 10 Feb 2014
Posts: 4

PostPosted: Thu Mar 12, 2015 1:51 pm    Post subject: Echo chamber Reply with quote

I'm wondering: Did you try to hold a discussion with the various people you're accusing, making fun of and attributing malice to?

I congratulate the various people participating here to investigate just enough to congratulate the rest about "being right", but one of the last messages is talking about what should be done. Seems nobody will do anything, so I predict kdbus goes into the kernel, everyone will complain again about how evil e.g. Red Hat is though life just goes on.

I do think it's good to be critical and I think a few good critical points were raised. However, they're lost in the noise of the echo chamber and the various wrong assertions. I don't think anyone here will build up credit, so even for the good critical points you're not getting anywhere. There's more to stuff than just black/white good/evil, etc.
_________________
GNOME release team member
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NeddySeagoon
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Posts: 42847
Location: 56N 3W

PostPosted: Thu Mar 12, 2015 5:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ovitters,

Lots of people are doing different practical things but there is no joined up effort like there is over at Red Hat.
kbus will probably go into the kernel at some time. Thats not important. What is important is that the old stuff still works so that those of us who think that kbus, systemd and friends should be avoided can contine to avoid them.

Try Olde Fashioned Gentooee if you want a nice fast boot.
It doesn't have any uevents to process, doesn't use udev or systemd, it doesn't do anything automatically behind your back. It just works.
There are many other efforts. Devuan, the systemd free Debian fork and all the distros listed as using eudev.
There will we lots I don't know of too.
_________________
Regards,

NeddySeagoon

Computer users fall into two groups:-
those that do backups
those that have never had a hard drive fail.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
truekaiser
l33t
l33t


Joined: 05 Mar 2004
Posts: 753

PostPosted: Thu Mar 12, 2015 11:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Anon-E-moose wrote:
Quote:
It continues by saying that while the writers do not wish the quality of the kernel code to decrease but if anyone "feels personally abused, threatened, or otherwise uncomfortable due to this process" they should write the Linux Foundation and file a complaint. The Linux Foundation Technical Advisory Board will then take action to resolve the issue.


I predict that next up will be more whining from Kay and LP, "wah, wah, they're saying things about us".
Along with GKH complaining about their sloppy, incomplete and dangerous kdbus not being included in the kernel.

The funny thing is, I've seen as much or more abuse from Kay, LP and GKH as from Linus. Talk about the pot and the kettle.


I think you may be right, i read it over it looks more like an attempt at a coup d'tat. Get rid of linus and they, and red-hat by proxy, has complete control of the kernel. they can shut out all NON system-d users. Hell even all non red-hat users.
_________________
"My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
—Saudi saying
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
roki942
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 18 Apr 2005
Posts: 284
Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Fri Mar 13, 2015 12:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

truekaiser wrote:
Anon-E-moose wrote:
Quote:
It continues by saying that while the writers do not wish the quality of the kernel code to decrease but if anyone "feels personally abused, threatened, or otherwise uncomfortable due to this process" they should write the Linux Foundation and file a complaint. The Linux Foundation Technical Advisory Board will then take action to resolve the issue.


I predict that next up will be more whining from Kay and LP, "wah, wah, they're saying things about us".
Along with GKH complaining about their sloppy, incomplete and dangerous kdbus not being included in the kernel.

The funny thing is, I've seen as much or more abuse from Kay, LP and GKH as from Linus. Talk about the pot and the kettle.


I think you may be right, i read it over it looks more like an attempt at a coup d'tat. Get rid of linus and they, and red-hat by proxy, has complete control of the kernel. they can shut out all NON system-d users. Hell even all non red-hat users.
+1
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ant P.
Watchman
Watchman


Joined: 18 Apr 2009
Posts: 5644

PostPosted: Fri Mar 13, 2015 1:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Everyone else is merely collateral damage to RedHat in their blood knight crusade against Oracle, after all.

Let them shut us out! Let them try. Once they're done surgically attaching everything to systemd, they'll be too fat to compete with the rest of Linux, which remains agile.

I won't mind seeing both GNOME and KDE crash and burn, with the ship they've chosen to chain themselves to.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Anon-E-moose
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 3793
Location: Dallas area

PostPosted: Fri Mar 13, 2015 9:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ant P. wrote:
Everyone else is merely collateral damage to RedHat in their blood knight crusade against Oracle, after all.

Let them shut us out! Let them try. Once they're done surgically attaching everything to systemd, they'll be too fat to compete with the rest of Linux, which remains agile.

I won't mind seeing both GNOME and KDE crash and burn, with the ship they've chosen to chain themselves to.


++
_________________
Asus m5a99fx, FX 8320 - nouveau & radeon, oss4
Acer laptop E5-575, i3-7100u - i965, alsa
---both---
5.0.13 zen kernel, profile 17.0 (no-pie) amd64-no-multilib
gcc 8.2.0, eudev, openrc, openbox, palemoon
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
steveL
Watchman
Watchman


Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery

PostPosted: Fri Mar 13, 2015 1:14 pm    Post subject: Re: Echo chamber Reply with quote

ovitters wrote:
I'm wondering: Did you try to hold a discussion with the various people you're accusing, making fun of and attributing malice to?

I congratulate the various people participating here to investigate just enough to congratulate the rest about "being right",

And you're not mocking anyone there, are you?

Did you try to hold a discussion yet, with those you're spuriously characterising, with a glib remark?

Apparently not, 4 posts in over a year.

Pot, meet kettle. Yes the kettle's shinier and does the job better: that's because it's pared down to essential simplicity.

Now now, pot. No need to get so snarky just because no-one wants to setup your pottering factory in order to build all the rest..

And FTR, I have indeed communicated with GregK-H on the Gentoo mailing list, about udev and initramfs. Thankfully we got the actual requirement out of him, before he started the vague hand-waving. He's good at documentation, yes. So what? Doesn't change the fact that he just puts people down instead of addressing the issue, when it's something not on his agenda, and he thinks they're not important. The recently linked lkml discussion has shown the same traits.
Quote:
but one of the last messages is talking about what should be done. Seems nobody will do anything, so I predict kdbus goes into the kernel

I'm sure you do; what with being a "GNOME team member", and all.
Quote:
everyone will complain again about how evil e.g. Red Hat is though life just goes on.

Ah more bitchiness. How charming.
Quote:
I do think it's good to be critical and I think a few good critical points were raised.

Yes, got to sound like you're actually being quite mature here, even though you haven't actually said anything substantive.
Quote:
However, they're lost in the noise of the echo chamber and the various wrong assertions.

Which you're free to pick anyone up on, at any time. You don't even need to lecture anyone while you do it; you can just pick one or two, and not have to take lots of time out. It's easy: try it and see.
Quote:
I don't think anyone here will build up credit, so even for the good critical points you're not getting anywhere. There's more to stuff than just black/white good/evil, etc.

Yes, but sh1t and shinola are still easy to distinguish:
Quote:
Whether it's a WTF language, a WTF framework, or WTF policies, we can recognize a WTF from a mile away, and are quick to say so when we spot one.
Non-programmers (our coworkers, managers, friends, spouses) often have a hard time understanding when we complain that things suck.

That's all that's happening with systemdbug; more and more people are looking at it, thinking "WTF?" and turning away. As time goes on, more and more programmers will look at it, and you can't hide behind a "developer" badge when it comes down to actually getting things done. Nor when it comes to talking bullcrap about the value of modularity, which is much more than 50 programs inappropriately lumped together, to make a fedora-src/Gnome-OS/Lennux download.

People quietly turning away aren't going to show up on the noisy propaganda channels systemdiots like to use to propagate their "message" on.

By all means feel free to pontificate some more about how we're all haters because we care about our craft: it won't change the fact that all you're doing is talking lots and lots of vague, with no actual content. Or y'know, summarise each of at least some of those oh-so-damaging assertions you claim are false in a line, and then show why it's wrong.

You know, that technical discussion you claim to be such an authority on. Cos atm you just come across as yaf fanboi, trying the "gentle persuasion" trick via slipped-in nastiness amidst some polite language, with zero content.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GFCCAE6xF
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 06 Aug 2012
Posts: 266

PostPosted: Fri Mar 13, 2015 1:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Shamus397 wrote:
An "interesting" patch made its way into the kernel recently, written by Greg KH: http://ostatic.com/blog/greg-k-h-tries-to-code-linus-behavio


I know this is a little OT and itwire is a bit of a shitty news source but take a look at: http://www.itwire.com/opinion-and-analysis/open-sauce/67269-linux-foundation-begins-clampdown-on-torvalds

Interesting parts imo:
Quote:
Torvalds is now nearing 50, the age which people, especially in the US and more so in the technology industry there, tend to comsider as over the hill. Thus it is not surprising to see this move.

[...]

Torvalds is one of the few people in the FOSS community who has the honesty and integrity that these others claim to have. And the way he has managed the kernel project is wholly responsible for its success.

Mediocre people are always the most ambitious and the FOSS community is no exception. It will be interesting to see the next moves in what is clearly an attempt to undermine Torvalds and try to undercut his leadership. In the end, the ones who crave power could end up doing a Samson on the FOSS community.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Anon-E-moose
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 3793
Location: Dallas area

PostPosted: Fri Mar 13, 2015 1:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I find it amusing that a gnome team member is trying to lecture on having meaningful discussions with devs
when there were many attempts at meaningful discussions from a variety of end users at the early stages of gnome3.,
where the end users by and large didn't want it, they wanted gnome 2 refined instead.

What was the result?
They were all blown off by the arrogant pricks that pass for gnome devs because "the devs knew better". :roll:

The same thing pretty much applies to the development of systemd, with the same result.

So please enlighten us why we should waste our time on devs who won't listen anyway?
_________________
Asus m5a99fx, FX 8320 - nouveau & radeon, oss4
Acer laptop E5-575, i3-7100u - i965, alsa
---both---
5.0.13 zen kernel, profile 17.0 (no-pie) amd64-no-multilib
gcc 8.2.0, eudev, openrc, openbox, palemoon
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Anon-E-moose
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 3793
Location: Dallas area

PostPosted: Fri Mar 13, 2015 1:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

GFCCAE6xF wrote:
I know this is a little OT and itwire is a bit of a shitty news source but take a look at: http://www.itwire.com/opinion-and-analysis/open-sauce/67269-linux-foundation-begins-clampdown-on-torvalds


Quote:
The so-called patch was written by Linux Foundation technical advisory board member Greg Kroah-Hartman, who is also an employee of the Foundation


Talk about a conflict of interest. :roll:
Especially since he's also the one pushing kdbus (with little traction) to be included into the kernel.

Sounds very much like the crap that debian did, where the "technical committee"
made a choice, ala sysd for all users even though they didn't have the legal power to do what they did.

It'll be interesting to see what transpires.
Will Linus put up with it? Will linux kernel be forked?


Edit to add: Another interesting tidbit from that link
Quote:
Garrett has been trying to promote himself as a leader in the FOSS commmunity for nearly a decade and has now even manoeuvred his way onto the board of the Free Software Foundation, an organisation of which he has been a bitter critic in the past.


Garrett is also on the TAB. http://www.linuxfoundation.org/programs/advisory-councils/tab for a list of who's who. :roll:

And this
Quote:
People in the FOSS community are famous for masking more Machiavellian objectives under the guise of "be excellent to everyone", a timeworn phrase that is bandied about by the most power-hungry and bigoted individuals.

They push the silly view that the Linux kernel project and other FOSS projects should be some kind of utopia where everyone is treated equally and talent is recognised. The truth is, there is vicious and bitter jockeying for position in the FOSS community and people are as cut-throat as in any other technology community.

Torvalds is one of the few people in the FOSS community who has the honesty and integrity that these others claim to have. And the way he has managed the kernel project is wholly responsible for its success.


I'm pretty sure that the motives for the "code of conduct" weren't put out to help devs (in general) but a few like GKH, etc.
And they don't like the fact that Linus is pretty open and honest.
_________________
Asus m5a99fx, FX 8320 - nouveau & radeon, oss4
Acer laptop E5-575, i3-7100u - i965, alsa
---both---
5.0.13 zen kernel, profile 17.0 (no-pie) amd64-no-multilib
gcc 8.2.0, eudev, openrc, openbox, palemoon
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ant P.
Watchman
Watchman


Joined: 18 Apr 2009
Posts: 5644

PostPosted: Fri Mar 13, 2015 4:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Anon-E-moose wrote:
Edit to add: Another interesting tidbit from that link
Quote:
Garrett has been trying to promote himself as a leader in the FOSS commmunity for nearly a decade and has now even manoeuvred his way onto the board of the Free Software Foundation, an organisation of which he has been a bitter critic in the past.


Garrett is also on the TAB. http://www.linuxfoundation.org/programs/advisory-councils/tab for a list of who's who. :roll:

Also brainwashed-and-crazy. He quit his professional coding career to take up being offended on other people's behalf, showed up to FOSDEM with clown hair to get a rise out of everyone, and requested the reddit /r/linux mods label him part of a terrorist movement. Unironically.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mrbassie
Guru
Guru


Joined: 31 May 2013
Posts: 527

PostPosted: Fri Mar 13, 2015 4:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="Anon-E-moose"]
GFCCAE6xF wrote:


Sounds very much like the crap that debian did, where the "technical committee"
made a choice, ala sysd for all users even though they didn't have the legal power to do what they did.

It'll be interesting to see what transpires.
Will Linus put up with it? Will linux kernel be forked?


That could actually be a good thing. We could have Linux as is and they could have Lennux (I'm stealing that steve) with all the crap that would otherwise be rejected getting in and nobody being rude to anybody. Remeniscent of the Golgafrinchams from HHGTTG.
Everyone wins in the very short term and in the slightly less short term Lennux-NT dies a horrible death and becomes an amusing memory.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Anon-E-moose
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 3793
Location: Dallas area

PostPosted: Fri Mar 13, 2015 10:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is a comment from slashdot on the CoC fiasco
Quote:
"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 do believe that the CoC was put forth to exert pressure on Linus, so there is some bit of truth to the comment.
And the bit about tech correctness taking a backseat to PC is spot on. PC will be the death of linux (as we know it)
_________________
Asus m5a99fx, FX 8320 - nouveau & radeon, oss4
Acer laptop E5-575, i3-7100u - i965, alsa
---both---
5.0.13 zen kernel, profile 17.0 (no-pie) amd64-no-multilib
gcc 8.2.0, eudev, openrc, openbox, palemoon
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
steveL
Watchman
Watchman


Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery

PostPosted: Sat Mar 14, 2015 2:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Anon-E-moose wrote:
This is a comment from slashdot on the CoC fiasco
Quote:
"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 do believe that the CoC was put forth to exert pressure on Linus, so there is some bit of truth to the comment.

Absolutely: [emphasis added]
Susan Linton wrote:
the document is clearly aimed squarely at Linus Torvalds who has been quoted saying what some characterize as abusive comments to developers. Torvalds, who admits he is "not a nice person," is straightforward and has little patience for sloppy and buggy code. Torvalds is downright rude sometimes but perhaps the Code of Conflict can rein him in. The commit was signed by 60 developers and Torvalds accepted the patch no doubt knowing that it was directed at him.

Quote:
And the bit about tech correctness taking a backseat to PC is spot on. PC will be the death of linux (as we know it)

Yes, I agree, though it's easy to miss that the "political correctness" on display is not politically correct; it's at best politically-naive. IMO it is in fact just another form of politicking: we can make you do what we want, by constantly questioning how you say things, and thus avoid the substantive part of what you actually said. "thought-police" iow.
Quote:
Torvalds was quoted as saying the code is what's important - not the color, gender, or sexual orientation of the submitter.

I absolutely agree with that 100%. The political issues around all those liberation struggles, are not served by misunderstanding the nature of the domain.
Quote:
Torvalds was scolded by many for that position and now complaints can be filed against him.

..which is what this is really about; exerting control, under the guise of the community, but actually to protect the interests of a fifth-column and their corporate masters. After all, stating that kdbus is badly-conceived, and shows no awareness of either the system it runs on, nor the milieu it operates within, as well as being nothing more than a cop-out from actually designing a userland, is hardly "on message".

So much more so when you baldly assert that the systemd-udev team are a crappy set of maintainers, and ask whether we can do anything about it.

Just a shame you're asking Greg-KH, since he's very much on their side in this whole debate, and is clearly interested in number-one and his stock-options, like any red-blooded Crapitalist should be. He's also been involved in some absolute howlers of design, along the way, always backing the systemdiots. Can't see a race coming? (despite being a self-proclaimed "kernel-expert" such that you don't bother to run RFCs by the ROTW.) Can't do any testing with the supposed audience for your inappropriate decision-making? Can't develop software.

It's always easier to coopt a documentation guy, since they don't birth code as a way of life.
They're just interested in "communicating to a wider audience" which goes nicely with the whole "coddle the user in a maze of dependency hell" approach, under the pretext of "reaching out to the mainstream" (bizspeek for "sell-out".)

FTR as someone who has in the past been involved with "liberation struggles" at a much more in-depth level than these preppy-wannabes, I feel confident in asserting that their political correctness is nothing of the sort.
It's about on a level with "some of my best friends are black." ("right on, dude.")


Last edited by steveL on Sat Mar 14, 2015 2:27 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
steveL
Watchman
Watchman


Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery

PostPosted: Sat Mar 14, 2015 4:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The so-called patch was written by Linux Foundation technical advisory board member Greg Kroah-Hartman, who is also an employee of the Foundation

Anon-E-moose wrote:
Talk about a conflict of interest.

Indeed; rewriting the rules or constitution to give yourself more power is a favoured trick of kleptocrats and dictators.
Doing it so blatantly is par for the course, too; after all it must be okay, if they're doing it so openly, right?

But there again, we don't know whether this was discussed widely within the community, only that it was discussed amongst about a 100 developers. And they must have some sort of consensus or Torvalds would not have taken the patch. Supposedly; I'm fairly sure he gave up on reviewing everything Greg-KH does a while back. That's the point of "trusted lieutenants": you trust them, or the whole thing breaks down.

Ultimately every community needs some set of guidelines as it gets larger, which tend to come about as an accumulation of mailing-list behaviour, that needs to be communicated to newcomers. As with so many things, the simple need becomes coopted as a level of control instead.
No-one can really argue with the need for a default setting of politeness and manners; it's when that becomes the only setting allowed amongst people who actually know each other quite well, and need to vent or let off steam from time to time, that you get the issue of martinets using it to arm-twist entire communities.

So the question is what power does this "technical" advisory committee have, which is apparently setup for completely non-technical issues; or at best acting outside its mandate to power-grab over social matters (which can only be for political purposes; there is no good reason to do so.)

Are they allowed to stop someone's code coming in (after all they're "technical" so that's their area, right?) on the basis that they've been bad-mouthing on a mailing-list?

Or are they a set of proctors, ie experienced moderators and IRC operators, who will proactively try to stop flamewars from breaking out, by nipping bad behaviour in the bud, via the simple mechanism of finding out what's wrong. (Somehow I doubt it.)

In any event, the glaring question is: WTF does any of this have to do with a "Technical Advisory Board"?

One might reasonably expect any such were appointed for technical expertise, and not competence with moderation of social matters, which experience tells us do not go hand-in-hand for the vast majority. So why are we knowingly setting ourselves up for failure?
Quote:
I'm pretty sure that the motives for the "code of conduct" weren't put out to help devs (in general) but a few like GKH, etc.
And they don't like the fact that Linus is pretty open and honest.

Starting to look that way; as you said a re-run of Debian Technical Committee and Gentoo Council/devrel; strategy seems to be going well.
You can always denounce anyone who spots it as a hater, or point to some bulshytt you posted about echo-chambers, along with a fairly predictable response which is much politer than any you'd get on a systemdbug list or channel, as indicator of how persecuted you all are, really, despite being the ones working for the corporate anti-GPL/pro-tivoization/anti-privacy agenda.
Quote:
People in the FOSS community are famous for masking more Machiavellian objectives under the guise of "be excellent to everyone", a timeworn phrase that is bandied about by the most power-hungry and bigoted individuals.

They push the silly view that the Linux kernel project and other FOSS projects should be some kind of utopia where everyone is treated equally and talent is recognised. The truth is, there is vicious and bitter jockeying for position in the FOSS community and people are as cut-throat as in any other technology community.

Torvalds is one of the few people in the FOSS community who has the honesty and integrity that these others claim to have. And the way he has managed the kernel project is wholly responsible for its success.

Mediocre people are always the most ambitious and the FOSS community is no exception.

It will be interesting to see the next moves in what is clearly an attempt to undermine Torvalds and try to undercut his leadership.

I prefer Linus over Lennart.

What about you? ;)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Kernel & Hardware All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 8, 9, 10 ... 25, 26, 27  Next
Page 9 of 27

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum