Quoting: gardotd426So this sounds like it's only possible for native games, too bad.

Seems to me it's not so much only possible for native games as only relevant for native games. I mean, how/why would someone developing for Windows and not Linux, care what Linux environment they weren't developing for?

"Yeah, before it was tough because we weren't targeting the whole range of different Linux distributions and environments. But now, we can simply not target Valve's 'Pressure Vessel', it saves a huge amount of not-work and non-effort!"

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: shorbergPart of what Patola seem to have been arguing about is this right here ;

While various existing codes have some differences, most share common elements including the principles of – truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness and public accountability – as these apply to the acquisition of newsworthy information and its subsequent dissemination to the public.[...]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism#Professional_and_ethical_standards [External Link]

(correct me if I'm wrong, don't want to put words in your mouth)

---------------

You don't have to like his humour, you don't have to like his opinions, you don't have to like the guy at all. But you do have to accept his rights.

I presume you're implying that in an age where anyone can say something and in effect be "publishing" their statement at a scale previously available only to newspapers etc., average people can and should now be considered "journalists" and judged by their adherence to journalistic codes.
But I'm not sure the existence of journalistic codes of how journalists talk about people actually implies a right of those people not to be talked about in other ways, particularly by non-journalists. And since a person's victims cannot really be considered "impartial" no matter how they actually speak, such a right (and the way some people here, including you, have been talking about it) would imply that all victims have to simply shut up, or at best hope that some journalist gatekeeper will speak for them--impartially, and all that. Of course with them not allowed to say anything there's nothing leading a journalist to realize there was something to report on. I seem to remember a more generally accepted right ("freedom of speech") that is violated by that idea. I also feel it violates common decency.

Incidentally, I read the statements by the people who made any. Being victims, they as I say can't be impartial. But they spoke quite carefully. The statements looked quite impartial and fair. And as to accountability--they're pre-accountable, they already lost their jobs! I can't judge for sure whether they were truthful . . . but most people don't quit their jobs for no reason, so I'm disposed not to call them liars from the get-go. You seem to be assuming that they are lying and defaming the guy and violating journalistic codes, but do you have evidence that they are in fact doing so? Why are you making that assumption?

Quoting: shorbergEven possible racism aside, making a joke relating to "I can't breath" is in poor taste given the circumstances. But bad humour isn't illegal. Even repeated bad humour isn't illegal. It's just that; bad humour.

Illegal? Did they put him in jail? Have they fined him? Given him onerous probation conditions and an officer checking up on him to see that he obeys them? No. They spoke about him in public. Surely their speech is just as much legal speech as his racist humour, and yet theirs, you seem to be seeking to criminalize.
I actually find it disturbing the extent to which commenters who want to shut these people up act as if all that is alleged is that he made some bad jokes. First, racist jokes are not just "bad humour" and repeatedly saying that really reminds me of the whole "Where's your sense of humour?" pseudo-defence traditionally used to make racist and sexist behaviour OK. But in any case, why are you carefully avoiding the allegations of a years-long practice of workplace bullying and harassment?

Quoting: shorbergFrom the Universal Declaration of Human Rights' preamble:

I'd find this whole section a lot less pompous if you could point to some right of this douchebag that they're violating. But all you're saying is that the free speech of some non-journalists which may violate the voluntary codes of conduct of at least some journalists represent both a violation of his rights and, somehow, a privately imposed legal penalty. Frankly, that's ridiculous.
If he thinks they're lying, he can sue. Or at least tweet back--it's not like he doesn't have access to the exact same platforms they do.

Quoting: shorbergAs for the workers;

Article 23, guarantees their right to a safe work environment

Oh, well that's all right then. I'm sure they were fine. Clearly, nothing bad happened and they didn't actually quit their jobs. Or at least, we can intuit that if they did quit their jobs it's only because they didn't understand that they're protected by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights!

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: GuestSo workers organizing a union and fighting against this asshole is not an option... The option is crying at twitter, this is why i hate cancel culture, it's the same shit as protestants burning witches, that's why this born in the USA.

The option was quitting their jobs. This has been pointed out repeatedly. And yeah, they said why they quit; should they be wearing muzzles?
That said, I certainly support unionization. But it is very hard in the United States. There are a host of barriers both formal and informal. For instance, in the US you can be fired for no reason. You can't be fired for trying to organize a union (or for racist reasons etc.), but as long as the employer claim they just sacked you because they felt like it, that they're allowed to do. And they are well aware of this--firing would-be union organizers not-because-of-that is an American tradition. There are various barriers designed to slow down the process of reaching union certification, so that the employer can have plenty of time to bully the employees into not unionizing. Americans don't have card-check, for instance--they have to have a formal vote announced to the relevant government agency (and hence the employer) months in advance. The US has numerous law firms, some quite large, that officially specialize in union-busting. Mirv mentioned the contracts, which hadn't occurred to me.
But there are also cultural issues. The US tech sector is very anti-union, even more than the US overall; part of it is this whole ideology of "meritocracy", which is co-incidentally very convenient for bosses. Part of it is that most of the software business grew after the Reaganite anti-union shift in US culture, so it never had any union roots. But the point is, I'd say in the California tech sector a boss could very plausibly threaten that if you try to start a union you'll never work in the whole sector again. That's before you even get into tech-sector workers internalizing those anti-union ideas, making them hard to organize.

Quoting: GuestI hate racism more than any of you

You seem very sure. Shall we get out the racism-hate meter and measure?

Quoting: Guest, but this is pathetic, and when someone says something different you start crying about how this community is terrible, but the guy talking here was only saying that lynching people is not okay.

Frankly, someone who hates racism might perhaps want to think for two seconds before they start saying "People publicly saying what an asshole their boss is" == "lynching". It isn't a lynching, it isn't anything even remotely comparable to a lynching.

Quoting: GuestA guy making a joke with "i can't breath" is an asshole and a racist? YES

And yet, that isn't why they left. If you read what they said, at least three of them in very measured, careful language refer to a long term pattern of abusive behaviour against everyone at the firm, which the person had no interest in changing.

Quoting: GuestBut remember, you live in a country (USA,UK) where (by my point of view, hispanic mixed race) almost everyone is racist as fuck, and your only way of "fighting" this is lynching some guy here and there, while the real problem still exists and is becoming bigger and bigger. Because racism must be confronted philosophically and politically, and the most anti-racist thing USA has ever done was voting for a black guy that bombed Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia, etc... Your whole system is fucked up.

Well, I'm a Canadian, so no, I don't live in that country. But yes, the whole US system is fucked up. Canadian too, to a somewhat lesser extent. And sure, major systemic change is needed for a host of reasons.
. . . And that means that until the systemic change happens, you should keep your mouth shut when your boss makes your employment so intolerable that you have to quit in the middle of the economy cratering? What?!
Your systemic point is off topic. Little individual instances of people calling out racism and assholery does not block systemic change.

Quoting: GuestI don't care what happens with this guy, i just don't get how he could be that powerful to make half the staff flee instead of getting what he deserved, an organized union of workers forcing him to stop being a dick.

I'll be frank: That is because you are ignorant. You're the one saying the system is fucked up and needs changing. Well guess what? The system is fucked up because it is dedicated to making sure asshole owners like him do have that much power. What do you think racism is for, anyway? It's to create groups who can be freely victimized, ie have more profits extracted from them, and to create an alternate target, a scapegoat to point the non-racialized bits of the working class at so they don't pay attention to the owners picking their pockets. Overall, a two-pronged strategy for giving that kind of person that much power. It's one strategy among many, and those strategies have been used very effectively in the US.

I think you've been culturally suckered. Despite hating racism, after buying some lines about "cancel culture" you're ending up in the position that racists are often in: Blaming the victims.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: shawnsterpSo, the questions run through my head: Are these mindsets indicative of the majority of linux users, or is it the usual vocal minority aholes that like to spend all day on comment sections / reddit? And if this IS the way most linux users act, how do I feel about being associated with them? And, is this actually more toxic than windows gamers / users?

My guess is that other communities are just as toxic, which is depressing to say the least. But, I don't really know. All I know is that the one that I am in IS toxic.

Well, first, consider yourself lucky. On this site, there is an argument happening between different sides; count up the posts and the posters and I think you'll find the solidly "oh no cancel culture" side doesn't make up a majority--and they're mostly fairly polite. I'm pretty sure in some places any voice on your side would be shouted down, and not pleasantly. (To be fair, in some other places anyone taking that side would be treated pretty viciously)
In this connection we should all be glad that Liam moderates this stuff and keeps these discussions relatively civil.

As to where Linux gaming culture fits in all this . . . well, there are at least three cultures mingling there. First, there's gaming culture overall, which traditionally has a reputation for toxic, antifeminist stuff and general crudeness. It would be a miracle if Linux gaming culture had none of that from broader gaming culture. Second, there's the "techie", "computer nerd" culture. It's actually kind of similar--a bit more intellectual, but traditionally very white male dominated and very reluctant to face its biases; on top of that there's a flavour of "meritocracy" that tends to advocate letting the talented, or in some cases the "talented", do whatever they want. Linux culture is in large part a subset of that culture, so . . .

To the extent that Linux culture has its own specific characteristics distinct from normal computer culture, it's ambiguous. Linux culture values freedom and individuality, which cuts two ways--on one hand there's the "freedom to act like a dick if I want" implication, but on the other there's the "don't judge people for being different, belonging to different categories" implication. Even this latter tends to result in a sort of "colour-blind" ethos that ignores built-in barriers--like "What? We're not treating her bad because she's a woman, we're treating her bad because she won't swap sexist jokes with us!" However, Linux culture is also dedicated to co-operation--the freedom in open source is about people freely building things together. This ethos doesn't have much patience for people messing other people over and making them not want to participate. And Linux people are used to being a minority, so they may extend the concept of Linux minorities wanting good treatment to the concept of other kinds of minorities wanting good treatment. Overall I'd want to claim that the specific Linux culture has a positive impact. But Linux gaming culture is still to a fair extent a piece of gaming and techie cultures, so go figure.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: ElectroDDI've read part of the senior animator letter, and that's the typical snowflake fake complain when things don't go their way.

I find it hard to believe how people are able to call other people "snowflakes" when the core of their grievance is "(clutches pearls) They're saying mean things about him! Make them stop! Who cares if they're true--people shouldn't be allowed to say mean things!"
Of course these same people are generally fine with saying mean things as long as it's not against prosperous white male assholes.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: PatolaFrom the said joke, I had not understand at the time I read this was an allusion to George Floyd, indeed. Anyway, this look like dark humor to me, insensitivity to George's death, not necessarily racism only because George was black.

I keep my point that this is cancel culture, which tries to skip trial and due process.

You know, I'm in my fifties. Back in the 1970s or 80s I don't remember anyone thinking you had to have a trial and due process before you were allowed to say something nasty about someone. So I don't think saying nasty things about people without first holding a trial represents "cancel culture". It's kind of incoherent as an idea--how do you try someone for the right to say nasty things about them without first saying the nasty things you want to be allowed to say?

If you're so hung up on trials, it seems to me the shoe is on the other foot--if they're lying, let him sue them for libel.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Patola

Quoting: Chuckaluphagus

Quoting: PatolaStill doesn't justify lynching the person, even if we assume they are guilty. Again, due legal process.

Lynching means something, to call this sort of thing lynching is just gross. This is private individuals using their freedom of speech to call out an employer's behavior and make public statements. There's no legal process involved because this is how speech is supposed to work.

These private individuals acting in concert and contributing to get that guy out of the market

Excuse me, but they quit their jobs. As in, abandoned their gainful employment to instead make zero dollars, very literally putting their money where their mouths are. He's still sitting on his now-largely-vacant company; he's not the one "out of the market".

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: dubigrasuThe video hardware decoding support needed for a quality stream is still a mess on Linux.

This sounds like something important and I don't know anything about it. Could you develop this theme a bit? Like, what does that mean exactly? And who would need to fix it, and are there barriers in the way of their doing so, and whose fault is that?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: furaxhornyxWhich usually end up on some obscure command line (so modern... :whistle:)

Speaking as someone who generally avoids the command line, when it comes to troubleshooting I prefer it. It's a lot easier to follow instructions to do command line stuff than to do GUI stuff, and it tends to be a lot less subject to change between versions. And it's more powerful for that kind of thing. So to me, the Windows tendency for troubleshooting instructions to be based on doing some weird tucked away GUI thing is a weakness rather than a strength.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: CatKiller

I'm still thoroughly curious on what the end game is here

My impression is that they don't really need one.

You may well be right but I'll be kind of disappointed if so. I keep hoping they've got some kind of Big Plan that will eventually, when the stars align properly, usher in the forever-awaited
Year of the Linux Desktop (TM)

View this comment - View article - View full comments