That's not true. In fact, it's a specific misrepresentation of the CoC. Whoever planted that idea, did it in bad faith:
> This Code of Conduct applies both within project spaces and in public spaces
when an individual is representing the project or its community. Examples of
representing a project or community include using an official project e-mail
address, posting via an official social media account, or acting as an appointed
representative at an online or offline event.
It's very specific. If you're representing the community, and you say something bigoted, then, yeah, that might be brought up. But that should be the case. No project wants its representatives doing stuff that reflects badly on the project or which creates a bad culture in the project community.
Besides, it's also just not a very good idea to post bigoted things, both in terms of making a better society and culture, and in terms of just following the Golden Rule and being nice to other people.
You're probably outside the 95th percentile on that one, though, and good design targets the rest of the user base. I think most people probably just got annoyed by accidentally hitting those, or by them taking up real-estate or cluttering the view.
Somewhere around 4.9 or 5.x is when I think it was best. They'd added library functionality for movies, TV, and audiobooks, which meant it was a one-stop shop for my media library on my Mac at the time. It was also still fairly lightweight, because it didn't have loads of stuff tacked on to it yet.
Really, the biggest thing I miss from iTunes, as a Google Play user, are the Smart Playlists. I loved being able to pull in every song I had from a set of artists and then shuffle through that. The "radio" features from Google just doesn't do it for me. I rarely want to listen to a bunch of music that's not in my library but which is similar to something I do have there. I'd much rather self-curate what I'm listening to. But I don't think the demand is there for that as much, now. I still wish they'd at least remove the 1000 song cap on playlists, so I could manually do this.
If you think that's unprofessional, you should see some of the drivel the FSF itself puts out.
I understand taking a position against proprietary code and systems. But to take an extremely hardline stance like they do, and to do it as childishly as the FSF often does, doesn't strike me as something that advances the cause of Free Software.
At least this is just editorializing. The FSF often engages in rhetorical flourishes that would be at home in an elementary schoolyard.
By saying, "Pushing to get more even representation is at odds with business success or product quality," which is often outright stated and even more often pretty directly implied, people are basically saying, "Those 'diverse' people are inherently poorer workers with worse quality output." That's the subtext, and that's what I think is kind of offensive about that line of argument.
I completely agree. My grandmother is in the Alzheimer's wing at her local nursing home, and I cannot begin to understand how the staff can do their jobs day after day. It's almost like running a daycare for elderly people.
They are so kind, and helpful, both to residents and their families, and they are just so superb at what are really difficult jobs. They deserve much more than most of them are making. They're some of the higher-paying jobs in the town, but relatively speaking, they're not high-paying.
Back when I was in middle and high school, my other grandmother was in the same home, though not in the Alzheimer's wing, and they seemed to take really good care of her, too. I wasn't as cognizant of it at the time, but talking to my parents and looking back, I can see that it's the case.
Given that I'm a man, I'm certainly not inventing any context that involves caveman speak about "bad man hurt woman". I wasn't even really talking about the direct interpersonal context of the remarks, I was talking about the remarks in the context of the larger experience of the person on the receiving end of them.
You can't just ignore the larger life experiences that people have. You can't treat every social interaction in some kind of hermetic isolation. Because that's not how social interactions happen. There's the context of the interpersonal relationship(s) of the people involved in an interaction, their history, their previous interactions. And, as I said, there's the context of each person's life experience that they bring to any social interaction.
Obviously, we don't think about this sort of thing on a deep level all the time. It'd short out every social interaction if we constantly tried to puzzle out every nuance of this context.
But we don't have to, we have short-hands, and we have "models" that we follow that work well most of the time. But when some large portion of a group of people says, "Hey, this part of the social interaction model is broken, and it's hurtful," there's no good reason to not at least reevaluate it and think about it. It's good to spend some time considering the nuances sometimes, even if it's not good to do it all the time.
If you really don't like the academic term "microaggression", then just think about it as "mild rudeness". Mild rudeness isn't the worst thing ever. But it's still not a way you should behave toward colleagues. You should endeavor to be polite, professional, and courteous towards those you work with. Personally, I'd want to know if I was accidentally doing something rude. I'd be a bit mortified a first, but I'd rather know so that I can curtail that behavior.
I think it's kind of absurd how negative the reaction is to, "Hey, can you please stop saying that; it's honestly a bit rude." It's not like it costs people anything. Courtesy is free, and it's no great imposition. And even when the courteousness involves more delicate matters of race, gender, marginalization, etc. it remains free.
It's foolish, and, honestly, kind of offensive, to imply that pushing diversity and at the same time pushing business success are somehow at odds with each other. There was an excellent segment that talked about almost this exact thing on Reply All a few weeks ago. If you skip to the second half, I'd recommend listening to it. They talk about how businesses benefit from diversity, how diverse groups perform better and get better results than groups chosen just on "qualifications", and they also address the annoyance at the fact that "success" and "diversity" are seen as competing goals, in stark rejection of evidence. They also talk about how things that don't seem like a big deal can really wear minority employees down:
I think that you're failing to see the context of these things. You're looking at them as isolated incidents when they are not.
As I understand it from friends and acquaintances, being asked again and again, "So where are you from?" becomes exceptionally irritating over time and can feel isolating. It might be a question that anyone can get asked, but it gets asked much more frequently of people who appear to be "foreign" in some way. It's not a big deal once or twice, but those incidents pile up over time and it can get disheartening, especially when asked of people who are from the US. When they answer, they often get the follow up question, "No, no, where are you really from?" It's a good way to unintentionally make a person feel unwelcome or like an "other" in a group, because after many repetitions, it hammers home the point, "You don't fit in, and I can plainly see it."
And the problem with the math question is that when asked of a woman or a girl, it generally does come loaded with "because usually women suck at math". Math isn't juggling, which is an uncommon talent; math is a basic, fundamental skill in STEM fields. Acting surprised or questioning how a female coworker "got so good at math" is just one more way that people accidentally perpetuate outdated, outmoded stereotypes about women in STEM fields. It's a question that almost nobody would think to ask of a male coworker. Because math skills are taken as a given in these sorts of fields.
These things don't seem like a big deal until you're on the receiving end of them again and again and again, day after day, month after month, year after year. Just like a little trickle of stream will eventually erode a valley where there wasn't one previously, over time all the little slights and knocks can wear people down.
Nobody is saying, "Don't be nice to your coworkers, and don't be social." They are saying, "Be mindful of the things you say, because they can hurt people unintentionally." Maybe you don't see the problem, personally, but if it's something that bothers a lot of people and they ask you to please cut it out, is it really that big a deal to try to cut it out? It's not like it's some kind of major encumbrance upon you.
I have to support an elementary school full of Macs, and Yosemite has been my ongoing nightmare. (Well, that and the bad joke known as OS X Server.) I won't update during the year for obvious reasons, but I'm still trying to decide whether or not I'm going to have to fragment my environment again (after just getting it all together with 10.9, finally). The incentive from Apple is very strong to install 10.10, but it just runs like utter garbage on all our older machines. And we can't run out and buy new ones whenever they feel like killing all hardware more than about 3 or 4 years old.
I'm still trying to convince people that our younger kids can learn just fine using the web browser on Windows and that we're overpaying money for these Macs (about double what we'd pay for a comparable Windows machine from our vendors) and wasting our tight budget. But there are a few people who just will not let them go. It's a real PITA running this mixed environment without another person to do sys/net admin stuff, or someone to handle more front-line support.
At this point, I'd take Apple just putting a stop to releasing these updates for iOS and OS X out at the beginning of the school year. It would be so much better if they'd do it about 4 months earlier.
I had this experience leaving the Apple walled garden about six years ago and moving on to Ubuntu (with Windows for gaming purposes in free time). I just kind of ate the costs. I suppose technically I still have access to my video content purchased on iTunes, but I'd have to boot to Windows or use a VM to get to it.
My rationale was kind of along the lines of avoiding the sunk cost fallacy: just because I'd been invested in the Apple ecosystem for 20-some years and buying iTunes stuff for more than half a decade didn't mean that I should just keep doing that when I was unhappy with other things. But that cost-benefit calculus might work out differently for other people. The lock-in is very real if you don't want to lose your stuff. It's a reason that I still refuse to buy movies from any online service. Only discs that I can rip or DRM free downloads for me from now on, so I don't end up walled-in again.
Eventually I was able to rescue all my protected music at least by paying what ammounted to a $25 ransom for a year of iTunes Match (or whatever they call it now) so I could download DRM free versions of the music I'd already paid for.
I think it's neat that people have been working on projects like this. It's good to play around with things and make your own thing...
That said, I think that if you're doing all the work to create and "market" your own distro (even if it's largely built on Ubuntu), you should have some kind of problem it solves. Mint, another popular Ubuntu-based distro started as a solution to the deprecation of Gnome 2. Not for me, but it solved a problem. I'm just not sure whose problems Peppermint solves.
Most people who only need a glorified web-browser box (grandparents and older parents, for example) are better off with something that hand-holds a bit more, like Chromium OS or ChromeOS, where you get "apps" using an app-store like interface.
On the other hand, people who are more savvy and don't need the hand-holding typically don't get as much utility from web-based solutions. And if they do use some online services for certain things (like word processing), most are comfortable just using something like the Chrome Launcher and using a more mainstream distro. That's the tack that I take, and it works well for me.
To each his or her own, though. If this solves problems for the developer and other people like it and use, then I suppose my critique doesn't hold up. And if someone enjoys doing it, and even a few people use it, the more power to them. I just worry sometimes about the ever-greater fragmentation of the Linux desktop.
Eich didn't just hold the same nominal position on marriage, though. He donated a large sum of money to actively (and successfully for a time) strip his coworkers of their legal rights. Not only did his position on marriage not change, but he expressed no regret over the actual, tangible harm that he helped to cause to his numerous gay and lesbian coworkers. It doesn't sound quite as soft when you put it that way.
There was no big ruckus when he was the CTO for the Mozilla Foundation, either. But when you become the CEO of an organization, you become its public face in many ways. And he had some baggage, there. Like it or not, many corporate CEOs are held to different standards of public discourse by their employers, because companies generally don't want to risk alienating consumers.
Now, I don't know that it was right for him to lose his job. That was probably the wrong thing to happen at this point in time. I have big problems with companies being able to exercise control over people's expression of their political beliefs and actions. I feel bad for him losing the position, I really do. On the other hand, if he was not going to be able to effectively run the foundation and there were schisms forming in the community that's so essential to the continuation of the foundation's work...what are you, as Mozilla, to do?
I mean, if you had a corporate leader who came out publicly and said, "I don't think mixed race couples should be allowed to marry," she or he probably would not last much longer in that position. And I'll bet most people would not have much of a problem. In fact, I don't have to bet about a situation like that — nobody shed too many tears for Donald Sterling.
It's a complicated issue. I'd strongly suggest reading (or listening) to the things that Dan Savage and Andrew Sullivan (both gay writers with very different political bents) had to say afterwards. Savage pointed out, very interestingly, that this ouster, while pinned on the "gay mafia", was really something that came from other large tech companies, from online journalistic enterprises, and from inside Mozilla itself. It may just be the first pang of society saying, "Bigotry against gay people is not socially acceptable, just like many other forms of bigotry." Again, like it or not, society does this all the time. See, again, Donald Sterling for a case study in it.
> This Code of Conduct applies both within project spaces and in public spaces when an individual is representing the project or its community. Examples of representing a project or community include using an official project e-mail address, posting via an official social media account, or acting as an appointed representative at an online or offline event.
It's very specific. If you're representing the community, and you say something bigoted, then, yeah, that might be brought up. But that should be the case. No project wants its representatives doing stuff that reflects badly on the project or which creates a bad culture in the project community.
Besides, it's also just not a very good idea to post bigoted things, both in terms of making a better society and culture, and in terms of just following the Golden Rule and being nice to other people.