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

Quoting: Dolus

Quoting: silmethAnd 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

Quoting: scaine

Quoting: DolusAddress 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

Quoting: anewsonPro 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.

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: Dolus

Quoting: scaine

Quoting: DolusAddress 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.

Quoting: tuubi

Quoting: anewsonPro 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.

Quoting: Dolus

Quoting: tuubi

Quoting: anewsonPro 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.

Quoting: DolusPeople 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.

Quoting: tuubi

Quoting: anewsonPro 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

Quoting: silmethI’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.

Quoting: tuubi

Quoting: Dolus

Quoting: tuubi

Quoting: anewsonPro 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.