Linux CoC Announces Decision Following Recent Bcachefs Drama
Linux CoC Announces Decision Following Recent Bcachefs Drama
Man, I really want bcachefs to do well; it's so nice, and while I'm happy with btrfs, I would really like to be able to have more RAID options in it.
Years ago, I used to do the LVM + FS dance, but after a couple of incidents I discovered it's a kind of jenga tower that's difficult to rebuild of things go really caterwumpus. Since then, I avoid LVM and have been waiting for stable RAID5/6 support in btrfs, but have come to the conclusion that it may never arrive; it seems to be either not a priority, or impossible (or exceedingly difficulty), because the years creep by with no apparent progress and the RAID warning increasingly looks as if it's written in stone.
So bcachefs is really interesting to me. But I'm getting Hans Reiser vibes from Overstreet; what is it with filesystem developers and oversized egos?
You do know Hans Reiser murdered his wife right?
It's very improbable that this guy will also murder someone despite being an asshole. You should probably get your vibes re-calibrated if it conflates murder with flame wars.
Iβm getting Hans Reiser vibes from Overstreet
You would do good on a CoC board.
Friendly Advice: If you hang out in microblog platforms, especially mastodon, do it less. The echo chamber discourse there is not good for your sanity. This is general advice, not just for you, really.
I don't hang out in microblogs. I use Lemmy, not Mastodon.
The dark side of Federation is that, as a user, you're often in the dark about which platform you're communicating across.
I don't do CoCs. But I was reading LKLM when Reiser was working on ReiserFS and was using it myself. Same vibe, over email at least.
The internet tends to exacerbate narcissism, but still.
What a weird little patronizing comment.
He tried to play Linus it seems
Linus has gotten a lot better. I'm pretty sure he is the one who wanted the CoC so that people like himself wouldn't ruin Linux.
He tried to play Linus it seems
For anyone else wondering, here's the text of the actual email cited as the CoC violation:
Michal, if you think crashing processes is an acceptable alternative to error handling you have no business writing kernel code.
You have been stridently arguing for one bad idea after another, and it's an insult to those of us who do give a shit about writing reliable software.
You're arguing against basic precepts of kernel programming.
Get your head examined. And get the fuck out of here with this shit.
Holy moly, the comments on the article are full of reactionaries shitting on Linux for having a CoC and enforcing it. Did not expect so much hate for such mundane things
It is the Phoronix forums
full of reactionaries shitting on Linux for having a CoC and enforcing it.
Because they don't enforce it for Linus. Yea he "took a break" and went to therapy etc. (before the CoC was introduced IIRC), but he still routinely abuses people publicly with no remorse or empathy, and continues to do it for decades now. As another commenter said of the CoC and Linus's continued current behavior today, "Of the 10 bullet points there he violates 6 of them."
And I don't agree with the people who claim "he has to be that way because blah blah and Linux wouldn't be what it is today etc.", I still think it's entirely possible to be a whole lot nicer while also being firm when necessary and still achieve the same end result.
Of course people are upset over double standards.
Is reactionaries the next word to get enlibbified now?
Timeout! Timeout!
Blocking work instead of comms.
And being open about it.
How obnoxious!Lol surely Linux can't have a CoC or Linus would be out in seconds? I wonder if he gets an explicit exemption.
Yeah, I wonder about this.
There's being blunt, and there's abuse. Linus attacks code, not people. Maybe it's seems like a distinction without a difference, but Linus would say "stop submitting stupid patches," instead of "stop being stupid." Or maybe, "the quality of your patch is dumb" versus "you're dumb." But, I don't follow the LKML so maybe he does ad hominem attacks.
I do know he's mellowed over the years and the CoC was introduced after his daughter called him out about abusive behavior, and he seems to have listened to her. So you may be right: if the CoC had been introduced 20 years ago, maybe he'd have already been kicked out.
My final thought is that there's a bit of "rules for thee, not me." Linux can probably now survive without Linus, but he's still a guiding force and probably the foremost authority on the core kernel, and I have a hard time imagining his lieutenants kicking him out.
There's being blunt, and there's abuse. Linus attacks code, not people.
Maybe today, but certainly not in the past. I don't doubt that Linus always had the best intentions for the kernel, but he nevertheless told other developers they should be retroactivly aborted. It's hard for me to imagine that this version of Linus and a Linux CoC could've existed at the same time.
But I also get the impression that he did change quite a bit since then, now being blunt instead of abusive as you said. This shouldn't be inherently incompatible with a CoC.
Linus attacks code, not people.
If I say "your code is garbage" would you really say I'm not attacking you? I don't think most people would accept that. The CoC mentions being welcoming, inclusive, respectful, empathetic, not insulting or attacking people or being unprofessional. Linus violates all of those! Of the 10 bullet points there he violates 6 of them!!
IMO this is a big issue with CoCs. They give cowardly justification for arbitrary dictatorial actions. It's much better to admit that it's a dictatorship.
I agree with the rest of your comment - it's clearly worth putting up with his arseholery given how important to the project he is.