4 ms·

It's safer to assume that what you perceive as toxic is actually working much better than what you have in mind, given the success of the Linux ecosystem.

by janto 5y ago

bitcharmer 5y ago
The level of toxicity and success are orthogonal. The warehouse part of Amazon's business is even more successful and more toxic (as a workplace) at the same time. So what is the point you are trying to make here?
- TeMPOraL 5y ago
  Depends on the metric of success you pick. Comparing Linux Kernel to Amazon warehouse business is apples to elephants. Amazon's warehousing is successful financially, perhaps less so reputationally, but the workers in general aren't very happy about the conditions - and they're not exactly volunteers[0]. A proprietary business is also by definition extremely exclusive - it's not like Amazon will give you their blueprints and operations book for free, to help you start your semi-automated warehouse, and it won't let you contribute to their business either, without a great degree of vetting. Meanwhile, Linux Kernel is built by true volunteers, and is successful in terms of spread and reliability as a software engineering artifact. Its process is very much inclusive - they'll accept just about anything that contributes positively to the final artifact, according to goals the "core team" defines[1], without much regard for who you are or where are you from. The people contributing regularly don't seem to complain about conditions either. There's no actual toxicity in there. Unfortunately, in recent years it's become popular for people to call out anything they don't like as "toxic". It often reads like a 5 year old complaining that their grandma makes them wear a hat outside in winter[2]. I've never heard that Linus "just wants the billion dollar enterprises to be testing it not the kernel team which are more of an academic community", but I can see this as a valid point of view. Neither him nor the other early Linux Kernel contributors wanted the whole planetary economy to become critically dependent on their little project. They don't automatically inherit responsibility for everyone else - especially that the whole project is open and inclusive, so anyone who wants to help can help - for instance by creating their own test suites and using it to create and submit bugfixes. -- [0] - Not in the ways that matter. Sure, they've approached Amazon on their own, but they did that only because they don't have any better way of housing and feeding themselves and their kin. The market may not be putting a literal gun to your head, but that doesn't make economic desperation less of a threat to life. [1] - Without that part, you'd have a ball of mud, not a software project. [2] - Though every now and then, the "toxicity" line is more like playing with a WMD. Like a 5 year old who thinks threatening to call CPS on their parents for not giving them candy is being clever.
  - bitcharmer 5y ago
    I'm not comparing Linux project to Amazon. I'm saying you can be highly successful and toxic at the same time and provide Amazon as an example. > they'll accept just about anything that contributes positively to the final artifact That is simply not true. See my example a few comments up.
- janto 5y ago
  Labelling something as "toxic" likely implies "bad for the success of the ecosystem". So no, they are definitely not orthogonal. They are (presumably negatively) correlated. The point made was: seeing that the Linux project is pretty successful already, it's not "safe to assume" that these changes you envision would lead to either a good kernel or a healthy ecosystem. You seem to want to optimize for something else...?

It's safer to assume that what you perceive as toxic is actually working much better than what you have in mind, given the success of the Linux ecosystem.

by janto 5y ago

It's safer to assume that what you perceive as toxic is actually working much better than what you have in mind, given the success of the Linux ecosystem.

bitcharmer 5y ago

The level of toxicity and success are orthogonal. The warehouse part of Amazon's business is even more successful and more toxic (as a workplace) at the same time. So what is the point you are trying to make here?

TeMPOraL 5y ago
Depends on the metric of success you pick. Comparing Linux Kernel to Amazon warehouse business is apples to elephants. Amazon's warehousing is successful financially, perhaps less so reputationally, but the workers in general aren't very happy about the conditions - and they're not exactly volunteers[0]. A proprietary business is also by definition extremely exclusive - it's not like Amazon will give you their blueprints and operations book for free, to help you start your semi-automated warehouse, and it won't let you contribute to their business either, without a great degree of vetting. Meanwhile, Linux Kernel is built by true volunteers, and is successful in terms of spread and reliability as a software engineering artifact. Its process is very much inclusive - they'll accept just about anything that contributes positively to the final artifact, according to goals the "core team" defines[1], without much regard for who you are or where are you from. The people contributing regularly don't seem to complain about conditions either. There's no actual toxicity in there. Unfortunately, in recent years it's become popular for people to call out anything they don't like as "toxic". It often reads like a 5 year old complaining that their grandma makes them wear a hat outside in winter[2]. I've never heard that Linus "just wants the billion dollar enterprises to be testing it not the kernel team which are more of an academic community", but I can see this as a valid point of view. Neither him nor the other early Linux Kernel contributors wanted the whole planetary economy to become critically dependent on their little project. They don't automatically inherit responsibility for everyone else - especially that the whole project is open and inclusive, so anyone who wants to help can help - for instance by creating their own test suites and using it to create and submit bugfixes. -- [0] - Not in the ways that matter. Sure, they've approached Amazon on their own, but they did that only because they don't have any better way of housing and feeding themselves and their kin. The market may not be putting a literal gun to your head, but that doesn't make economic desperation less of a threat to life. [1] - Without that part, you'd have a ball of mud, not a software project. [2] - Though every now and then, the "toxicity" line is more like playing with a WMD. Like a 5 year old who thinks threatening to call CPS on their parents for not giving them candy is being clever.
- bitcharmer 5y ago
  I'm not comparing Linux project to Amazon. I'm saying you can be highly successful and toxic at the same time and provide Amazon as an example. > they'll accept just about anything that contributes positively to the final artifact That is simply not true. See my example a few comments up.
janto 5y ago
Labelling something as "toxic" likely implies "bad for the success of the ecosystem". So no, they are definitely not orthogonal. They are (presumably negatively) correlated. The point made was: seeing that the Linux project is pretty successful already, it's not "safe to assume" that these changes you envision would lead to either a good kernel or a healthy ecosystem. You seem to want to optimize for something else...?