Comments by "Juzu Juzu" (@juzujuzu4555) on "Linus Leaves Linux, A New Code Of Conduct and Community In Conflict" video.

Without Linus, we would have kernel full of shite, made by people who are not talented enough, and people who are not committed enough, and people who get butthurt because they got criticism. Also his charisma made the project SO much more interesting. He probably handled lots of situations badly. But that's a given if you care deeply about the project and you are on open community, where you can't use your corporate power to control everything. These kind of "code of conducts" are absolutely horribly dangerous. But I hope that this project has wise enough people to reap the benefits without the problems.
7
@zeetoo6306 That is a racist comment by today's standard. Someone might identify as cow. Open projects like these where there isn't corporate structure and methods of controlling the work the same way, cannot be places where you worry about babysitting people that don't have the experience, commitment, or thick enough skin to handle harsh criticism. Linux would probably be irrelevant without Linus on the charge. And now if he actually removes (or most likely forced away) himself, and there are CoC where it says that "persons experience" should not matter, it really feels dangerous and stupid. Also, if someone actually is saying "treat me like a human please", he/she is at least either idiot/passive aggressive. Serial killers are also humans, so that sentence itself is a declaration of SJW view of reality. "Treat me the way that helps this project to succeed as much as possible", that is what should be said on open source projects like this. On most cases it would lead to really polite and respectful discussion, but sometimes it would be harsh and scare away people that are not good for the project on the long run. The wisdom to know how to act is of course hard as hell to achieve, but I would assume Linus should be pretty good at this based on his track record and the quality of the kernel.
2
@eetunimee3883 Even if companies would be good role models, they have hierarchy based on laws. They have job interviews and selection process, they can fire bad people, and mostly keep things from media through contracts employees must obey. Also microsoft at least was the worst tech company in existence. It has no morals, and more destroyed opposing companies than any other tech corp. Whole corporation is based on robbing and lying. Open source projects need strong leaders that keep the sheep away. I don't know if Linus has been horrible or not, but I know for sure that "love thy fellow coder" ideology wouldn't have made the better kernel than the biggest tech company on the planet. Also these kind of CoC's are not actually reducing bad behavior, or changing people. They are just adding another layer of bad behavior, alienating true talent, and giving the power to the wrong people. It works in companies, where it only works on horizontal level, but on open source it's destructive as hell, if the managers are not really smart and wise people.
1
I agree with your comment completely. Without Linus, there is no way in hell Linux kernel would be what it is. All corporations have the hierarchy. First you must get the job. Then you must follow your boss' instructions etc. So how could unrelated people manage to program better kernel than multibillion dollar companies? I can promise you that "being gentle towards each other" is not the most important goal. Though if you develop something great, you almost certainly will be appreciated more than within corporation. Kernel is the place where you must have "dictator" of sort to keep all those NSA backdoors and buggy codes in check. And where you really need to fixate on performance aspects, at least on important parts of the kernel. I'm afraid that NSA etc. backdoors have been forced to the kernel. At least NSA has been trying to force Linus to do so. There are videos where someone asks, "have NSA approached you to have backdoors in Linux Kernel". He says "No" while nodding as clearly as possible, "... but if they were, I'm pretty sure I couldn't legally speak about it". I would be really happy if more people would be going through the Linux sources. And people who actually can spot clever vulnerabilities and backdoors.
1
@zeetoo6306 I'm not from right. And the CoC is not saying "Don't be a jerk", it's a method of forcing people to behave in a certain way that is clearly politically motivated. Like using the tax laws to get the mafia bosses and oligarchs away, this can be used to get away the people that prevent takeover etc. if things go wrong. Every hate speech law etc. "policing about what people speak" is insane. If someone was total jerk, he could have been talked to and if nothing would have changed, he could have been sacked, even before these kinds of social policing acts. It doesn't take much effort to think why this kind of policing is not solving anything, it's just making it all worse. The motive behind the CoC is already telling, "to create good community" and not about "to create the best possible product". Because in open source projects, especially something as crucial as kernel, you have to be harsh sometimes. It's completely different from corporations.
1
@zeetoo6306 I have read the CoC. Also it's not asking, it's forcing. There is a huge difference. And that actually leads to many kinds of problems. These problems are unnecessary, and the CoC isn't solving anything. Perhaps you should read the CoC and research the subject, and not forget the historical perspective. Also open source projects are not workplace in the same way as we know workplace. Rules and requirements are very different. If toxic workplace produced Linux, then let it be toxic. For some reason it's much better kernel than Windows, when Microsoft have had these kinds of conducts in some form or another since the dawn of time.
1
@zeetoo6306 That's wrong direction to look at CoC, because it's vague on meaning and even more vague on how it can be applied to people that have done nothing wrong. The question that should be asked is, why the goal is "healthy community" instead of "to achieve the best product", while those are related, the difference can be huge. But even more importantly, what does this CoC actually helps? And who does it help? Would Linux be better if that CoC would have been there for two decades? The same "wrong direction" in thinking happens when privacy is taken away. "If you are not doing anything wrong, then you don't have nothing to worry about" is common sentence that people say. Which of course is completely ridiculous claim, without privacy there cannot be real freedom, only illusion of it. And when wrong people get into the power, and it's a given, then bad things will happen.
1
@zeetoo6306 Clearly your comment here already highlights one problem of CoC, "it's my way or the highway". On open source projects, everything should be there to support the goal of making the best possible product, because there are no corporate structure etc. laws that help to achieve this. It's easy for companies to have all these CoCs because they actually mean nothing for them. Hierarchy rules, not petty laws of how to speak. The point here is simple, as your comment already pointed out. CoC is not about the product, it's about forcing people out. It's tool for takeover and forcing political ideologies all over. "Treat others as they deserve" should be the only golden CoC rule. I really hope this doesn't phuck up the development of Linux and more over I hope this doesn't phuck up Linus Torvalds away. Nothing is more obvious than the corporations wanting to control Linux, and NSA etc wanting to build backdoors, allowing essentially total control of whole internet. To fight against these things happening requires something other than CoC. Again, if CoC doesn't benefit the development, then why and by who is it there for? Have you read the CoC?
1
@zeetoo6306 Do you think Linus Torvalds or Linux enthusiasts are happy about this? Many developers doesn't deserve respect, at least if they commit shite. "Education or experience cannot be used for discrimination" is also pretty idiotic. But the main problem is that this doesn't solve anything, it only creates problems. If someone would not appreciate great code from someone because he/she/it is something that this CoC is supposed to protect, then that person would have been kicked out. Also if someone happens to be somewhat racist, but produces the best possible kernel code, should open source projects kick that person out? Sure, if that creates lots of problems, but that would have happened even before CoC. It''s not hard to follow all the logical paths and see that the net outcome can only be negative. And in the case of takeover, which these kind of rules enable, the negative outcome is enormous. Only thing CoC helps, is to make it easy to kick people out from the project. The same goes with hate speech laws, which are only used to regulate democracy and free speech. Criminal speech, like supporting violence and crime, was already criminal. Again, in corporations this is not a bad problem, they have full control structure anyway. But on projects based on volunteering, these can be used to hijack the project. And it's completely obvious that this is the interest of corporations and agencies. Microsoft and Google are also clearly politically motivated. I'm completely altruistic, and have been active to accomplish a better world for almost two decades. I really hope I'm wrong about this, and it has nothing to do with takeover attempt. But it's 100% sure that it will help it, if/when they are trying the takeover.
1
@zeetoo6306 "It doesn't matter what Linus thinks", well, it most certainly does. If you don't understand this, then it's no wonder why you have drunk the leftist cool aid. I have said it so clearly and many times, CoC is a tool for takeover. It doesn't happen instantly, but slowly, and it happens mostly hidden. Problems in the Kernel are supposed to be hidden, like NSA backdoors. Getting real FOSS people out and corporate interest in has to happen slowly. But if you actually think Linus is just the guy who started the project, well, why do I even bother. And if the opinion of enthusiasts is not important, then whose is? Butt-hurt lefties that just have to spread their political ideologies that they actually don't understand at all, and don't bother to research the history.
1