Who controls glibc?(lwn.net)
lwn.net
Who controls glibc?
https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/753646/a6ebb50040c5862c/
506 comments
So what annoys me about this discussion is that both sides are not being very honest. Calling it an "abortion joke" is to me highly misleading. It's an "abortion law joke" & has nothing to do with the procedure of abortion! The people arguing against it seem to be implying its much more inappropriate than it is.
Anyway, no where in the article is the actual "joke" mentioned. So I'd like to include it here just so people can judge for themselves.
"Proposed Federal censorship regulations may prohibit us from giving you information about the possibility of calling this function. We would be required to say that this is not an acceptable way of terminating a program."
Anyway, no where in the article is the actual "joke" mentioned. So I'd like to include it here just so people can judge for themselves.
"Proposed Federal censorship regulations may prohibit us from giving you information about the possibility of calling this function. We would be required to say that this is not an acceptable way of terminating a program."
The discussion is a proxy for how executive decisions are made for glibc, and in particular by whom.
The merit of a stale joke from the 90s is meaningless, and posturing about its appropriateness is disingenuous. Open source principals have always been eccentric (Torvalds, Raymond(!), etc.), and the FOSS community tolerated it not only because of their technical contributions, but because the open source community itself is an expression of tolerance based on shared objectives.
Of course others would like to wield their influence in the generation of the DNA of the internet, and there is a tremendous amount to be gained by scandalizing, discrediting, and isolating its core maintainers.
Perhaps eventually RMS will come around and remove the joke himself, after finding it does not stand the test of time. But it would go a long way to resolving this if they could demonstrate they aren't just using the joke as a pretext for scandal to undermine the decision making structure of a project.
It's clearly not about the joke.
The merit of a stale joke from the 90s is meaningless, and posturing about its appropriateness is disingenuous. Open source principals have always been eccentric (Torvalds, Raymond(!), etc.), and the FOSS community tolerated it not only because of their technical contributions, but because the open source community itself is an expression of tolerance based on shared objectives.
Of course others would like to wield their influence in the generation of the DNA of the internet, and there is a tremendous amount to be gained by scandalizing, discrediting, and isolating its core maintainers.
Perhaps eventually RMS will come around and remove the joke himself, after finding it does not stand the test of time. But it would go a long way to resolving this if they could demonstrate they aren't just using the joke as a pretext for scandal to undermine the decision making structure of a project.
It's clearly not about the joke.
I am one of those people who subscribe to some of Stallman's crazier ideas, and one of those people who thinks trigger warnings are often misused[1].
That being said, I am really for professionalism in code and documentation. This might have been a fun joke for a pet project at one point in time, but I totally agree it should be removed.
I really feel like Stallman is lacking some serious maturity here as well. It nothing to even do with being offended about the joke, it's just a basic idea of professionalism around documentation.
It'd be different if the joke was in a comment, or even in a tutorial on how to use a library (if it wasn't an official tutorial or was intended to have a humorous tone).
To be clear, I don't even like the stupid "Apt has super cow powers" at the bottom of apt-get. If you want to make jokes, put them in your blog, or your YouTube screencast, or at most in the comments.
[1]: Trigger warnings came from the idea of post traumatic stress. But you don't know what can trigger memories of trauma. A rainbow could invoke a PTSD episode for someone who associates that with a loved one that was killed. I think a better approach is the old TV saying, "Viewer/Listener discretion is advised" if something might be offensive.
That being said, I am really for professionalism in code and documentation. This might have been a fun joke for a pet project at one point in time, but I totally agree it should be removed.
I really feel like Stallman is lacking some serious maturity here as well. It nothing to even do with being offended about the joke, it's just a basic idea of professionalism around documentation.
It'd be different if the joke was in a comment, or even in a tutorial on how to use a library (if it wasn't an official tutorial or was intended to have a humorous tone).
To be clear, I don't even like the stupid "Apt has super cow powers" at the bottom of apt-get. If you want to make jokes, put them in your blog, or your YouTube screencast, or at most in the comments.
[1]: Trigger warnings came from the idea of post traumatic stress. But you don't know what can trigger memories of trauma. A rainbow could invoke a PTSD episode for someone who associates that with a loved one that was killed. I think a better approach is the old TV saying, "Viewer/Listener discretion is advised" if something might be offensive.
Never been a big fan of the "Code of Conduct" wars that seem to be going on. On the surface, yeah, it seems great. Everyone be nice and get along. But for some odd reason, the enforcement always tends to favor one side.
Case in point, the pointless NodeJS TSC drama [1] from yesteryear. I don't like JS to begin with, but that makes me want to avoid the project like the plague.
The problem with letting thin skinned people decide what you can and can't say, is they have a very long (and often contradictory) list. Suddenly, you find yourself in the middle of a kangaroo court facing charges of high treason, guilty until proven innocent. The sentence? Public crucifixion.
Stallman made the right call.
https://www.reddit.com/r/node/comments/6whs2e/multiple_coc_v...
Case in point, the pointless NodeJS TSC drama [1] from yesteryear. I don't like JS to begin with, but that makes me want to avoid the project like the plague.
The problem with letting thin skinned people decide what you can and can't say, is they have a very long (and often contradictory) list. Suddenly, you find yourself in the middle of a kangaroo court facing charges of high treason, guilty until proven innocent. The sentence? Public crucifixion.
Stallman made the right call.
https://www.reddit.com/r/node/comments/6whs2e/multiple_coc_v...
To call it a joke is a bit of a stretch, more like a turn of phrase or wink to the reader.
As far as explicitly inserting one's politics into communal tools, this case is so mild it's hard to fathom any grounded person wasting time on it.
However, there is a case at the moment of the author of the BFG tool for git adding a paragraph of text about fighting trump at the end of his tool's output. He won't get rid of it until he's out of office.
Another case where Atlassian was putting in LGBT rainbow stuff into the output of a successful push.
Really obnoxious stuff. I don't mind devs having a personality but develop a sense of decorum.
As weak as the RMS line was, best keep any snifter of politics out of your tools. It's just lame at the end of the day.
As far as explicitly inserting one's politics into communal tools, this case is so mild it's hard to fathom any grounded person wasting time on it.
However, there is a case at the moment of the author of the BFG tool for git adding a paragraph of text about fighting trump at the end of his tool's output. He won't get rid of it until he's out of office.
Another case where Atlassian was putting in LGBT rainbow stuff into the output of a successful push.
Really obnoxious stuff. I don't mind devs having a personality but develop a sense of decorum.
As weak as the RMS line was, best keep any snifter of politics out of your tools. It's just lame at the end of the day.
While RMS has undoubtedly contributed much to the FOSS community, he seems to undermine some of his core points with trivial matters.
For example, his piece "Reasons not to use Facebook"[0] contains some great points, but I find them undermined by the unnecessary usage of the word "useds"
Similarly, this seems like an extremely trival case to "exercise my authority over Glibc very rarely" as he puts it.
[0]: https://stallman.org/facebook.html
For example, his piece "Reasons not to use Facebook"[0] contains some great points, but I find them undermined by the unnecessary usage of the word "useds"
Similarly, this seems like an extremely trival case to "exercise my authority over Glibc very rarely" as he puts it.
[0]: https://stallman.org/facebook.html
Regardless of whether he has the right to veto the consensus vote to remove the joke, by ignoring the general attitude that it’s not in good taste, he’s alienating everyone. That’s not a good position to put himself in, and I wonder if he’ll soon find himself the head of a dead project while a forked one lives in in his spirit but without his name.
Today we discover why EGCS required a way to appeal Stallman decisions as a condition of reunification
Email thread: https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2018-05/msg00001.html
That gets a bit whacky when RMS asserts control over glibc as the GNU project maintainer and asks them to add it back:
https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2018-05/msg00149.html
That gets a bit whacky when RMS asserts control over glibc as the GNU project maintainer and asks them to add it back:
https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2018-05/msg00149.html
RMS needs to be removed from his dictator position in GNU. This is just one of many times that he has hurt a GNU project. He has held many projects back because he is so behind the times and stubborn, not to mention holding the FSF back. This behavior isn't limited to mailing lists, either. He breaks LibrePlanet conference rules every year to interject and rant during talks he disagrees with. I appreciate him for founding the free software movement and writing so much great software in the early days, but it's no longer the RMS show.
>Stallman, however, replied that "a GNU manual, like a course in history, is not meant to be a 'safe space'". He suggested the possibility of adding a trigger warning about functions that create child processes, since childbirth is "far more traumatic than having an abortion"
"It is better to remain silent at the risk of being thought a fool, than to talk and remove all doubt of it."
-Michael Scott
"It is better to remain silent at the risk of being thought a fool, than to talk and remove all doubt of it."
-Michael Scott
Though I can’t stand Ulrich Drepper, what he said in the glibc 2.2.4 release notes is true:
“The morale of this is that people will hopefully realize what a control freak and raging manic Stallman is. Don't trust him. As soon as something isn't in line with his view he'll stab you in the back. NEVER voluntarily put a project you work on under the GNU umbrella since this means in Stallman's opinion that he has the right to make decisions for the project.”
https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-announce/2001/msg00000.html
“The morale of this is that people will hopefully realize what a control freak and raging manic Stallman is. Don't trust him. As soon as something isn't in line with his view he'll stab you in the back. NEVER voluntarily put a project you work on under the GNU umbrella since this means in Stallman's opinion that he has the right to make decisions for the project.”
https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-announce/2001/msg00000.html
> I exercise my authority over Glibc very rarely -- and when I have done so, I have talked with the official maintainers. So rarely that some of you thought that you are entirely autonomous.
'I'm sorry, did you think you were free?'
Really, the only response to this is to fork the project and start flibc: Free libc.
'I'm sorry, did you think you were free?'
Really, the only response to this is to fork the project and start flibc: Free libc.
Kind of late to the party: IMHO Stallman should not be the main decision point for GNU, as it stands. He should be in charge of an NGO which tries to raise awareness about Free Software, but he should not be involved in the day-to-day management of software projects, and definitely not ones with such huge visibility as GCC, Emacs, bash, etc.
Why not? GCC vs EGCS, Emacs vs XEmacs, etc. He has had a ton of huge contributions to the software world, but ask yourself this question: in today's networked world, where internet is widespread and cheap, where it is easy to organize software projects online and Open Source is quite well established, do you think that Richard Stallman would have the same visibility as he has now, as a sort of historical figure?
Also, before you answer, remember the FSF/GNU/Stallman were not the only authors of Open Source back in the day so even without him we'd have Open Source Software (MIT, Berkeley, etc.).
Why not? GCC vs EGCS, Emacs vs XEmacs, etc. He has had a ton of huge contributions to the software world, but ask yourself this question: in today's networked world, where internet is widespread and cheap, where it is easy to organize software projects online and Open Source is quite well established, do you think that Richard Stallman would have the same visibility as he has now, as a sort of historical figure?
Also, before you answer, remember the FSF/GNU/Stallman were not the only authors of Open Source back in the day so even without him we'd have Open Source Software (MIT, Berkeley, etc.).
What an unexpected schism!
> "As the head of the GNU Project, I am in charge of what we publish in GNU manuals. I decide the criteria to decide by, too"
Interesting. Sounds decidedly authoritarian to cite (sole?) control of the content and criteria.
> "I exercise my authority over Glibc very rarely -- and when I have done so, I have talked with the official maintainers. So rarely that some of you thought that you are entirely autonomous."
That sounds puzzling. "It turns out my rank actually supersedes yours and always has, I've just never exercised it until now."
In general I've always thought that Stallman is to be admired. He's made a fantastic contribution to society. I don't really have a position on the issue at the heart of this manpage content debate, but on the meta-issue of what his role is/should be, his position seems like an odd one.
Ultimately, the copyright holders for the source code (and to some extent the manuals) have the real power regarding "who controls glibc?". I suspect that no one will care strongly enough about this particular issue in order to drive a real fork.
> "As the head of the GNU Project, I am in charge of what we publish in GNU manuals. I decide the criteria to decide by, too"
Interesting. Sounds decidedly authoritarian to cite (sole?) control of the content and criteria.
> "I exercise my authority over Glibc very rarely -- and when I have done so, I have talked with the official maintainers. So rarely that some of you thought that you are entirely autonomous."
That sounds puzzling. "It turns out my rank actually supersedes yours and always has, I've just never exercised it until now."
In general I've always thought that Stallman is to be admired. He's made a fantastic contribution to society. I don't really have a position on the issue at the heart of this manpage content debate, but on the meta-issue of what his role is/should be, his position seems like an odd one.
Ultimately, the copyright holders for the source code (and to some extent the manuals) have the real power regarding "who controls glibc?". I suspect that no one will care strongly enough about this particular issue in order to drive a real fork.
I'm reminded of the old comment at the bottom of the man page for 'su', where rms argues for why the implementation is deliberately less secure:
"Sometimes a few of the users try to hold total power over all the rest. For example, in 1984, a few users at the MIT AI lab decided to seize power by changing the operator password on the Twenex system and keep- ing it secret from everyone else. (I was able to thwart this coup and give power back to the users by patching the kernel, but I wouldn't know how to do that in Unix.)
However, occasionally the rulers do tell someone. Under the usual su mechanism, once someone learns the root password who sympathizes with the ordinary users, he can tell the rest. The "wheel group" feature would make this impossible, and thus cement the power of the rulers.
I'm on the side of the masses, not that of the rulers. If you are used to supporting the bosses and sysadmins in whatever they do, you might find this idea strange at first."
"Sometimes a few of the users try to hold total power over all the rest. For example, in 1984, a few users at the MIT AI lab decided to seize power by changing the operator password on the Twenex system and keep- ing it secret from everyone else. (I was able to thwart this coup and give power back to the users by patching the kernel, but I wouldn't know how to do that in Unix.)
However, occasionally the rulers do tell someone. Under the usual su mechanism, once someone learns the root password who sympathizes with the ordinary users, he can tell the rest. The "wheel group" feature would make this impossible, and thus cement the power of the rulers.
I'm on the side of the masses, not that of the rulers. If you are used to supporting the bosses and sysadmins in whatever they do, you might find this idea strange at first."
Calling it an "abortion joke" is a politicized headline.
It's a political/protest joke, maybe.
Either way, the glibc documentation is not the ideal place for it.
It's a political/protest joke, maybe.
Either way, the glibc documentation is not the ideal place for it.
When did HN get so political? In the last couple of months I've noticed an increasing amount of argumentative political discussion. Both sides seem so convinced of their moral superiority, it was somewhat amusing at first but now I'm tired of it.
I thought this was one of the last places I could come to get away from it but not anymore.
I thought this was one of the last places I could come to get away from it but not anymore.
Interesting to see that a person like Stallman forces a stupid joke into a project.
I'm only 31 and write only stupid / unnecessary things into my code base for fun/home projects. I would love to add more easter eggs and little things into professional code but its unnprofessional.
Especially for someone so eager about GNU and principles.
I'm only 31 and write only stupid / unnecessary things into my code base for fun/home projects. I would love to add more easter eggs and little things into professional code but its unnprofessional.
Especially for someone so eager about GNU and principles.
It is sometimes a bit stunning to me that people look up to someone who is constantly willing to place his own opinion (and in this case, his own sense of humor) above everyone else. Perhaps RMS is the original real world House M.D., but I don't really think so.
IMHO, if he places his own joke over the views of all of the developers doing the actual work on glibc, those developers should leave/fork. If RMS was, indeed, right, then GNU's version will win.
IMHO, if he places his own joke over the views of all of the developers doing the actual work on glibc, those developers should leave/fork. If RMS was, indeed, right, then GNU's version will win.
If RMS thinks that dumb jokes in documentation are worth having, I say we wholeheartedly embrace it. For example:
* GNU/Hurd - almost as traumatic as childbirth.
or
* childbirth - if it takes as long as it takes to write GNU/Hurd, may God have mercy on your soul.
or
* RMS - I know how to program computers (maybe), so obviously I am an expert on female reproductive issues.
* GNU/Hurd - almost as traumatic as childbirth.
or
* childbirth - if it takes as long as it takes to write GNU/Hurd, may God have mercy on your soul.
or
* RMS - I know how to program computers (maybe), so obviously I am an expert on female reproductive issues.
I don't really get this "joke" but man do I hate the trend of removing any personality from code. Programming used to be FUN and a way to express yourself. Easter eggs exemplified this. Now its cold and business only.
LWN covers the topic: "Who controls glibc?"[0] (accessible to non-subscribers in two weeks).
[0]: https://lwn.net/Articles/753646/
[0]: https://lwn.net/Articles/753646/
To me the most interesting aspect of the story is not that RMS has a God card. The interesting aspect is that RMS decided that blocking the change was so important that using the card was warranted. As RMS stated himself, he is using this power so rarely that developers don't know that it exist.
Why was preserving an old joke important enough to do this?
Why was preserving an old joke important enough to do this?
Stallman has his problems. He is like Cassandra, talking, talking, talking for decades about dangers, they come true and still noone listens. Already in 2002 and 2010 he has expressed suicidal thoughts https://www.wired.com/2010/04/ff_hackers/all/1/
I am saying to help understand him not to say he is right here.
I am saying to help understand him not to say he is right here.
Conversation about the "old joke" that was removed:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17017037
GNU info pages have had a few jokes sprinkled around for long enough that I assume it has something to do with the environment at the MIT AI lab (e.g., https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual/html_node/strfry.ht... , https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual/html_node/Error-Cod... ). So I'm not surprised to see RMS push back on the change. I am surprised that he isn't effective at it.
glibc seems to be something that causes non-technical disputes every few years. I'm sure that's because it's central to almost everything but the kernel.
glibc seems to be something that causes non-technical disputes every few years. I'm sure that's because it's central to almost everything but the kernel.
Rms was in the clear wrong. This is a professional setting,that joke wasn't professional.
If you wouldn't say it at a work meeting then it's probably not a good idea to say the same in a commit or a serious thread of a foss project.
Although I don't like the joke,it's not so much the content of the joke but rather where the joke was spoken that seemed inappropriate.
I am not offended. much like a coworker coming to work topless in shorts won't offend me;I'd just think that attire is best for outdoors or the beach instead of an office.
If you wouldn't say it at a work meeting then it's probably not a good idea to say the same in a commit or a serious thread of a foss project.
Although I don't like the joke,it's not so much the content of the joke but rather where the joke was spoken that seemed inappropriate.
I am not offended. much like a coworker coming to work topless in shorts won't offend me;I'd just think that attire is best for outdoors or the beach instead of an office.
It's a comment that doesn't actually lend any knowledge on the issue. Striking it makes the documentation clearer to the end user.
Seems like it's time to fork the repo.
Seems like it's time to fork the repo.
The conflict happening here is between maintainers, who don't want a dated left-leaning joke embedded in the glibc documentation, and Stallman, who does.
If there's "political correctness" involved, it's right-leaning. But, as a left-leaning pro-choice person: there's no "political correctness" here at all.
It's a story because Stallman has played the "I'm the boss, you can't outvote me" card, not because anyone's in a tizzy over the politics.