SC Controller driver and UI version 0.4.5 is out, last release for a while

a) there's no corporate oversight here. It's the kernel, business as usual. Proxies? Please, give the conspiracy theories a rest. No-one is "shoving" anything down anyone's throats.
b) many, many other projects have a CoC. It was long overdue for the kernel.
c) being the underdog doesn't mean you get to shit on people because of a lack of CoC. Having respect should be an absolute minimum for any project, open-source or otherwise.
d) yes, it will do good in the long term, once the dust settles. This is like Ubuntu's CoC all over again.

Oh yes, and the FreeBSD COC has done wonders for that project, hasn't it? Oh, wait, no. Contributions are down and they're getting half of what they were receiving in donations last year.

Yeah and that has nothing to do with the fact that True OS has become a thing and that most of the biggest industrials wanting to use BSD in certain case scenarios deccided to put their cash in TrueOS instead noooo, it has everything to do with COC ....
Gimme a break ...

a) there's no corporate oversight here. It's the kernel, business as usual. Proxies? Please, give the conspiracy theories a rest. No-one is "shoving" anything down anyone's throats.
b) many, many other projects have a CoC. It was long overdue for the kernel.
c) being the underdog doesn't mean you get to shit on people because of a lack of CoC. Having respect should be an absolute minimum for any project, open-source or otherwise.
d) yes, it will do good in the long term, once the dust settles. This is like Ubuntu's CoC all over again.

Oh yes, and the FreeBSD COC has done wonders for that project, hasn't it? Oh, wait, no. Contributions are down and they're getting half of what they were receiving in donations last year.

Yeah and that has nothing to do with the fact that True OS has become a thing and that most of the biggest industrials wanting to use BSD in certain case scenarios deccided to put their cash in TrueOS instead noooo, it has everything to do with COC ....
Gimme a break ...

Have you been watching TrueOS? It no longer even ships with a GUI; it's just FreeBSD with some newer packages by default. And from the look of it, it's not getting all that much in donations anymore either.

Have you been watching TrueOS? It no longer even ships with a GUI; it's just FreeBSD with some newer packages by default. And from the look of it, it's not getting all that much in donations anymore either.

Yes and from where I am sitting the BSD community at large haven't been receiving that much attention in the past.
So sorry hate to break it to you but from where I am they are doing better than ever...

So sorry hate to break it to you but from where I am they are doing better than ever...

Then you're in la-la land. FreeBSD is falling like a rock, and it'll drag everything based off of it down with it.

Address this: https://twitter.com/_sagesharp_/status/1042769399596437504

So Sharp is stirring up controversy over Tso and here you are stirring up controversy over Sharp.

Lets cut to the chase, and not make this about Tso, Sharp or anyone else. Here's a thought experiment: would you rather have the Linux kernel built by despicable people, and stick your head in the sand about them, or would you rather have a bit of accountability, and possibly have the kernel suffer as a result?

Personally, I'm in the latter camp. I try not to stick my head in the sand about anything. People should hold Apple and Samsung accountable for Chinese worker suicide rates at Foxconn. People should boycott Starbucks and Amazon in the UK because they offshore their taxes. And people should have the opportunity to address despicable behaviour in those contributing to the kernel.

To be clear - "address", not "insta-ban". It's a process.

So sorry hate to break it to you but from where I am they are doing better than ever...

Then you're in la-la land. FreeBSD is falling like a rock, and it'll drag everything based off of it down with it.

Aaaand that's (solely) because of their CoC? Because otherwise they'd be soaring? Did I get that right? I suppose you can back that up with something like facts.

And people should have the opportunity to address despicable behaviour in those contributing to the kernel.

Ah, but who gets to determine what is despicable, an entirely subjective word?
At the moment, it might be just things that "make sense", no homophobic/racist/sexist/etc. shit. From there, it is just a very, VERY small step to arbitrary additions.
Oh, so you vote Republicans? Interesting... Ah, you say you didn't participate on that demo against firing this black woman from her post? That's not good. What, really, you were not willing to give your spare kidney to this man you don't know? How despicable. You called someone an idiot because he did something easy wrong five times in a row? You are too mean.

You can go on with this endlessly, and you are naive if you think that this is not the first step in a very wrong direction. Oh, I called you naive (because I think you are) - you can already get banned on a few forums for words like these.
Thought police, here we come.

Address this: https://twitter.com/_sagesharp_/status/1042769399596437504

So Sharp is stirring up controversy over Tso and here you are stirring up controversy over Sharp.

No, Sharp is very obviously trying to get someone fired/removed from a team. For disagreeing with the "correct" view. Which group or movement if famous for this behavior again?


Last edited by TheSHEEEP on 23 September 2018 at 8:02 pm UTC

What do you think about this?
https://lulz.com/linux-devs-threaten-killswitch-coc-controversy-1252

This is ridiculous. For as long as man kind existed, there have been witchhunts. Sure, Linus torvalds was accused of dancing with the devil, and the human being that replaced him is a member of the inquisition, but this will not overturn much.

You see, a fascist discipline- centric government in a voluntary project is like clamps for water: it might splash, but will never get a good grip, and eventually sink to where it belongs.

The SJWS everywhere have shown how incompetent, unreliable, and downright despicable they can be: they cost Disney star wars, they FUBAR'd Mass Effect, and ID software are throwing SJW jokes as the main attraction to DOOM Eternal.

keep calm, and do what you used to, the way you used to. Overreacting like this, is the exact reaction they need to further fuel their agenda. Keep calm, stand your ground, and don't let their decisions affect you. They can only exert power , if you believe that they have power.

Just wanted to get my two cents in and bring the perspective up a bit; first I'm impressed with the quality of the discussion here. S/O GOL community for keeping it civil.

Second if I got enough of a sense of both sides here for my own thirty-thousand-feet overview:

Pro CoC wants to change the norms around abusive behaviour and language in the kernel dev community (which goes right up to Torvalds). Con CoC is worried this empowers moderators to exclude developers who don't share their ideological views. The former goal is laudible, and the latter concern is justified (eg Johnathan Haidt's work on academia).

My own opinion is that the causal effect of such a code is likely zero, what really matters is how the community comes to balance this desire for constructive change against the cost of alienating those who fear losing the positive parts of the status quo. In this respect I think this debate is overblown; the community is the strongest part of FOSS, no? Have yee so little faith that the community will figure out the right balance (better than, say, twitter?)

And what’s IMO is worth pointing out – the kernel maintainers remain the same kernel maintainers. There are no personal changes into some hidden “SJW infiltrators”, whoever that would be.

Oh, really? You sure about that?

https://twitter.com/_sagesharp_/status/1042769399596437504

Yes. I am sure about that.

What you linked is a Twitter thread by someone who currently is not a kernel maintainer¹ and who’s themself wrote “I am no longer a part of the Linux kernel community”. When the list of kernel maintainers changes because of this, and without careful evaluation by current maintainers, then you can ping me again.

This is basically an independent, although related to the project in the past, observer’s opinion on the matter. They have full right to express it just as you have.

¹ Although it seems they’d been a USB driver maintainer in the past – so if this person is your “SJW infiltrator”, I have bad news for you, the kernel’s been infiltrated for good 9 years now…


Last edited by silmeth on 23 September 2018 at 8:48 pm UTC

Address this: https://twitter.com/_sagesharp_/status/1042769399596437504

So Sharp is stirring up controversy over Tso and here you are stirring up controversy over Sharp.

Lets cut to the chase, and not make this about Tso, Sharp or anyone else. Here's a thought experiment: would you rather have the Linux kernel built by despicable people, and stick your head in the sand about them, or would you rather have a bit of accountability, and possibly have the kernel suffer as a result?

Personally, I'm in the latter camp. I try not to stick my head in the sand about anything. People should hold Apple and Samsung accountable for Chinese worker suicide rates at Foxconn. People should boycott Starbucks and Amazon in the UK because they offshore their taxes. And people should have the opportunity to address despicable behaviour in those contributing to the kernel.

To be clear - "address", not "insta-ban". It's a process.

Here, is a little something that might blow your mind: I do not care. I do not care about a contributors sexuality, religion or political affiliation. If their contributions make Linux a better kernel, they should be allowed to contribute. That is how it should be. Instead we now have these neon haired puritans conducting witch hunts for things people posted SEVEN years ago. Shame on anyone trying to justify this.


Last edited by Dolus on 23 September 2018 at 8:48 pm UTC

Pro CoC wants to change the norms around abusive behaviour and language in the kernel dev community (which goes right up to Torvalds). Con CoC is worried this empowers moderators to exclude developers who don't share their ideological views. The former goal is laudible, and the latter concern is justified (eg Johnathan Haidt's work on academia).

This CoC simply codifies the powers Linux maintainers have had all along. The "Con CoC" crowd seem to have trouble understanding this basic fact. Could be because they'd rather just keep fighting the scary SJW cabal that keeps taking away their toys.

Address this: https://twitter.com/_sagesharp_/status/1042769399596437504

So Sharp is stirring up controversy over Tso and here you are stirring up controversy over Sharp.

Lets cut to the chase, and not make this about Tso, Sharp or anyone else. Here's a thought experiment: would you rather have the Linux kernel built by despicable people, and stick your head in the sand about them, or would you rather have a bit of accountability, and possibly have the kernel suffer as a result?

Personally, I'm in the latter camp. I try not to stick my head in the sand about anything. People should hold Apple and Samsung accountable for Chinese worker suicide rates at Foxconn. People should boycott Starbucks and Amazon in the UK because they offshore their taxes. And people should have the opportunity to address despicable behaviour in those contributing to the kernel.

To be clear - "address", not "insta-ban". It's a process.

Here, is a little something that might blow your mind: I do not care. I do not care about a contributors sexuality, religion or political affiliation. If their contributions make Linux a better kernel, they should be allowed to contribute. That is how it should be. Instead we now have these neon haired puritans conducting witch hunts for things people posted SEVEN years ago. Shame on you for trying to justify this.

I must have missed there news - a CoC got introduced and people are now witch hunting to have people not be able to contribute to the Linux kernel? I sure can't find that happening, but perhaps you can provide links.

I already did.

Pro CoC wants to change the norms around abusive behaviour and language in the kernel dev community (which goes right up to Torvalds). Con CoC is worried this empowers moderators to exclude developers who don't share their ideological views. The former goal is laudible, and the latter concern is justified (eg Johnathan Haidt's work on academia).

This CoC simply codifies the powers Linux maintainers have had all along. The "Con CoC" crowd seem to have trouble understanding this basic fact. Could be because they'd rather just keep fighting the scary SJW cabal that keeps taking away their toys.

Oh? The Linux maintainer's were wont to harass people for stats they posted on social media? More than half a decade ago at that? This "everything is ok" and "this is not a big deal" crap rings hollow. People ARE leaving Linux over this.

Pro CoC wants to change the norms around abusive behaviour and language in the kernel dev community (which goes right up to Torvalds). Con CoC is worried this empowers moderators to exclude developers who don't share their ideological views. The former goal is laudible, and the latter concern is justified (eg Johnathan Haidt's work on academia).

This CoC simply codifies the powers Linux maintainers have had all along. The "Con CoC" crowd seem to have trouble understanding this basic fact. Could be because they'd rather just keep fighting the scary SJW cabal that keeps taking away their toys.

Oh? The Linux maintainer's were wont to harass people for stats they posted on social media? More than half a decade ago at that? This "everything is ok" and "this is not a big deal" crap rings hollow. People ARE leaving Linux over this.

That controversy was already ongoing before the CoC was implemented. Cause does not follow effect.

People ARE leaving Linux over this.

People were also leaving, or even didn’t bother to try to get their code merged, over lack of the CoC and abusive language on the mailing list. You can’t have both.

I’d rather have people not fear trying to contribute to Linux.

Pro CoC wants to change the norms around abusive behaviour and language in the kernel dev community (which goes right up to Torvalds). Con CoC is worried this empowers moderators to exclude developers who don't share their ideological views. The former goal is laudible, and the latter concern is justified (eg Johnathan Haidt's work on academia).

This CoC simply codifies the powers Linux maintainers have had all along. The "Con CoC" crowd seem to have trouble understanding this basic fact. Could be because they'd rather just keep fighting the scary SJW cabal that keeps taking away their toys.

That may be true; indeed my own bias is that the CoC simply reflects changes happening within the community and has no effect beyond a signal of change. However, it may also be true that, as Con worries, that the act of codifying it increases the ability of moderators to exclude contributors in practice (much easier to do so when there's an official document you can use to justify your actions)

EDIT:
it -> the CoC
has effect -> has no effect


Last edited by anewson on 23 September 2018 at 9:21 pm UTC

I’d rather have people not fear trying to contribute to Linux.

People who have the wrong opinion now have to fear contributing. ESR would be drummed out of kernel development over this COC.

Pro CoC wants to change the norms around abusive behaviour and language in the kernel dev community (which goes right up to Torvalds). Con CoC is worried this empowers moderators to exclude developers who don't share their ideological views. The former goal is laudible, and the latter concern is justified (eg Johnathan Haidt's work on academia).

This CoC simply codifies the powers Linux maintainers have had all along. The "Con CoC" crowd seem to have trouble understanding this basic fact. Could be because they'd rather just keep fighting the scary SJW cabal that keeps taking away their toys.

Oh? The Linux maintainer's were wont to harass people for stats they posted on social media? More than half a decade ago at that? This "everything is ok" and "this is not a big deal" crap rings hollow. People ARE leaving Linux over this.

That controversy was already ongoing before the CoC was implemented. Cause does not follow effect.

Do YOU think he should be drummed out of contributing for what he posted seven years ago. Yes or no.