4 ms·

I don't need my computer tools to define my political/spiritual beliefs. In fact, I think Torvalds adopting something like this in relation to Linux is a deep b

I don't need my computer tools to define my political/spiritual beliefs. In fact, I think Torvalds adopting something like this in relation to Linux is a deep betrayal of a hacker ethos. I will be keeping my eyes peeled for alternatives that understand the division between spiritual beliefs and "forced agreement with an assertion by participation" that uses religious terminology that has quite a different meaning to me. So far, hurd and is promising.

krapp 8y ago
>I don't need my computer tools to define my political/spiritual beliefs. In fact, I think Torvalds adopting something like this in relation to Linux is a deep betrayal of a hacker ethos. A "hacker ethos" is a political belief.
- yosefzeev 8y ago
  It is but you don't need an OS to define it.
  - krapp 8y ago
    But it seems as if the politics being discussed here apply to the project and its contributors, it's not as if a Code of Conduct is being applied to you, the end user. Unless they add something political to the license itself, I don't see why it would matter.
    - yosefzeev 8y ago
      If it doesn't matter, why is Linus making it an issue?
      - eropple 8y ago
        Oh, heck, I don't know. Maybe because he realizes he's been pissing in the pool, that others are also pissing in the pool, that nobody should be pissing in the pool, and the first step to creating a social understanding of "don't piss in the pool" is to put up a sign to that effect. Or maybe it's the evil, mustachio-twirling social justice warriors, somehow hectoring a project worth billions of dollars to its component contributors into listening to little old them. That is equally as plausible.
      - krapp 8y ago
        He's making it an issue for himself and contributors to the Linux kernel. If you're none of those, then it shouldn't affect you. Everyone else is making a mountain out of a molehill, however. As far as why... I suppose you can read his words yourself.
Millennium 8y ago
It is indeed a deep betrayal of a hacker ethos: in particular, Geek Social Fallacy #1 (Ostracizers Are Evil). And you know what? That's probably a good thing. The radical inclusivity (i.e. exclude no one, for any reason) of the geek community led to some beautiful things. We took in the people nobody wanted around, and with their help, we built something special. But in our reluctance to exclude anyone, we forgot something important. We were all accused of dragging things down and ruining things for other people -it's part of what bound us together- but we neglected to address the fact that for some of us, that was true. And we became their enablers, and they did drag us down and ruin things for everybody, because that's what they do, and we did not insist that they change or leave. Many people preferred to just leave themselves, rather than confront the manchildren in our midst: a de facto exclusion, rather than mandated by any sort of rule. We were, in essence, abused and manipulated by the people we should have kicked to the curb, and because of this, they took over. This is ending. And that scares some people to death, and not even unreasonably so: these are people who were rejected by their societies all their life before finding geekdom, which they clung to because, in its refusal to reject anyone, it could never reject them. Anyone who remembers being an outcast would be scared by the possibility of geeks beginning to cast people out, because it opens the potential that they might be cast out yet again. Who wouldn't fear that? Especially after years of growing unused to outcast status? And yet, it has to be done. It should have been done a long time ago. Those who get cast out because of this still have the option that has been facing them since childhood: they can change. Because sometimes, the ostracizers are right.
- furgooswft13 8y ago
  Who, or what exactly are you talking about?
  - Millennium 8y ago
    People are afraid of being cast out of the community because of the CoC, are they not?
    - furgooswft13 8y ago
SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
> I don't need my computer tools to define my political/spiritual beliefs. [...goes on to explain how they are looking for a whole new OS more inline with their political/spiritual beliefs]

krapp 8y ago

>I don't need my computer tools to define my political/spiritual beliefs. In fact, I think Torvalds adopting something like this in relation to Linux is a deep betrayal of a hacker ethos. A "hacker ethos" is a political belief.

yosefzeev 8y ago
It is but you don't need an OS to define it.
- krapp 8y ago
  But it seems as if the politics being discussed here apply to the project and its contributors, it's not as if a Code of Conduct is being applied to you, the end user. Unless they add something political to the license itself, I don't see why it would matter.
  - yosefzeev 8y ago
    If it doesn't matter, why is Linus making it an issue?
    - eropple 8y ago
      Oh, heck, I don't know. Maybe because he realizes he's been pissing in the pool, that others are also pissing in the pool, that nobody should be pissing in the pool, and the first step to creating a social understanding of "don't piss in the pool" is to put up a sign to that effect. Or maybe it's the evil, mustachio-twirling social justice warriors, somehow hectoring a project worth billions of dollars to its component contributors into listening to little old them. That is equally as plausible.
    - krapp 8y ago
      He's making it an issue for himself and contributors to the Linux kernel. If you're none of those, then it shouldn't affect you. Everyone else is making a mountain out of a molehill, however. As far as why... I suppose you can read his words yourself.

Millennium 8y ago

It is indeed a deep betrayal of a hacker ethos: in particular, Geek Social Fallacy #1 (Ostracizers Are Evil). And you know what? That's probably a good thing. The radical inclusivity (i.e. exclude no one, for any reason) of the geek community led to some beautiful things. We took in the people nobody wanted around, and with their help, we built something special. But in our reluctance to exclude anyone, we forgot something important. We were all accused of dragging things down and ruining things for other people -it's part of what bound us together- but we neglected to address the fact that for some of us, that was true. And we became their enablers, and they did drag us down and ruin things for everybody, because that's what they do, and we did not insist that they change or leave. Many people preferred to just leave themselves, rather than confront the manchildren in our midst: a de facto exclusion, rather than mandated by any sort of rule. We were, in essence, abused and manipulated by the people we should have kicked to the curb, and because of this, they took over. This is ending. And that scares some people to death, and not even unreasonably so: these are people who were rejected by their societies all their life before finding geekdom, which they clung to because, in its refusal to reject anyone, it could never reject them. Anyone who remembers being an outcast would be scared by the possibility of geeks beginning to cast people out, because it opens the potential that they might be cast out yet again. Who wouldn't fear that? Especially after years of growing unused to outcast status? And yet, it has to be done. It should have been done a long time ago. Those who get cast out because of this still have the option that has been facing them since childhood: they can change. Because sometimes, the ostracizers are right.

furgooswft13 8y ago
Who, or what exactly are you talking about?
- Millennium 8y ago
  People are afraid of being cast out of the community because of the CoC, are they not?
  - furgooswft13 8y ago

SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago

> I don't need my computer tools to define my political/spiritual beliefs. [...goes on to explain how they are looking for a whole new OS more inline with their political/spiritual beliefs]