Re: [rain1 at airmail dot cc] GNU glibc ownership

[Robert Kiraly <oldcoder at yahoo dot com>]

I'd like to comment on the glibc documentation issue.

I've been told that a new thread is appropriate for multiple
reasons. If this is a faux pas similar to the ones that Christo-
pher Floyd has lectured me about with such enthusiasm, it
isn't intentional. I'm proceeding as I've been instructed.

This will probably be my only letter to the list. It's being
submitted because people suggested that it be submitted. If any-
body would like to discuss it with me, my email address should
appear in the header.

I'd like to thank Zack Weinberg and Siddhesh Poyarekar for sug-
gestions and assistance. This is about the fact that, due to a
spam filter, it took a day to get this letter posted.

If the post makes online, Mr. Faylor is responsible for the actual
fix. He took the time, I gather, needed to analyze the letter and
identify the filter issue. Most admins wouldn't go to the trouble.

That's appreciated, but as I approached Mr. Faylor on the advice
of somebody here, and explained the issue in good faith, I can't
say that the condescension and hostility that were offered in
return were welcome.

But people are a mixed bag. Even individuals are different
things in different contexts. They may employ logic and reason.
Or they may react to pretty much anything based on random
perceptions.

In short, in life and especially in group projects, facts are
often seen as irrelevant.

This needs to be kept in mind when a FOSS project focuses
on a "joke" that has little to do with FOSS.

Dr. Stallman, good day.

This is a delurk, in GNU contexts, after three decades. The
delurk is related to the current glibc documentation issue.

I'm an Old Coder of your generation. I've been a professional
developer since 1978 and a coder since 1973.

I'm a few years younger than you. I don't remember Captain
Video, but perhaps you do.

I do remember when an electronic calculator half the size of a
desk was considered a startling advance in tech. Years later,
we had portable AM radios, portable tape recorders, and even
pocket size calculators.

In places that ordinary people didn't frequent, something called
email had been invented. It used uucp, which wasn't common in
residential contexts.

Things evolved rapidly after that.

I've been FOSS-ified since 1985. This was pre-modern era, but I
picked up source code in different places.

I became acquainted with gcc in the 1990s. The project ended one
of my company's business models. You should have seen my CEO's
reaction when I told him about it.

OldCoder: So, 'C' compilers are free now
CEO: What
OldCoder: Free. Plus, they come with source code.
CEO: Not for the XYZ Architecture
OldCoder: Yep
CEO: But we charge 5 grand for that one
CEO: We'll ignore the issue. Ostriches do great in business.
OldCoder: I got work to do

I didn't mind. It seemed like natural evolution. GNU appeared
because it was time for it to appear. If it hadn't been GNU, it
would have been something else. There was a role that needed to
be filled.

I'm not saying that I agree with FSF on all issues or consider
it to be a divine presence.

But GNU in general, as well as Linux in particular, has made a
difference. Which means that you, Torvalds, and others have
made a difference as well.

Note: I'm aware that GNU/Linux is the preferred name. Having
acknowledged that point, I'll abbreviate.

By the end of the 1980s, the time was right for a FOSS PC UNIX (or
UNIX-like) OS to appear. Minix seemed ready to assume the title,
but my recollection is that Prentice-Hall's involvement proved to
be an obstacle.

So, it was supposed to be BSD instead. The Jolitz articles, which
you undoubtedly remember, were part of the tech atmosphere of
the time.

I made an attempt to get involved. I talked to CSRG at UCB, which
I'd attended, about BSD becoming FOSS. I offered some proposals.

But CSRG told me that they were going to hold off on BSD work
temporarily due to possible litigation by AT&T. This was before
AT&T went ahead and filed the suit.

While UCB was focused on that issue, Linux ate BSD's lunch.

Any of the three OSes would have served the purpose of FOSS PC UNIX.
Linux did fine in the role.

My company lost sales in the 'C' compiler market. But this conversa-
tion took place with a co-worker:

David: The CEO is a cheapskate. He won't buy more Suns.
David: Can we just run Linux instead?
OldCoder: Hm. It's a UNIX that runs on my PC. It's free, too. I'm in.
David: Maybe my giant Sun monitor will work with a PC and Linux
OldCoder: Try it
Monitor: *sizzle*
David: Oh, well. Sayonara, Sun. Hello, PCs.
OldCoder: Hey, this Perl thing looks cool.

Linux, combined with the rise of the modern Web, shifted the river of
society into a new course.

I've got to admit that I didn't foresee the impact of the Web. But I
think now that the Web as we know it was inevitable. And that the Web
and FOSS are among the most positive developments of the past 50
years.

Yes, in recent years, we've seen that the Web can be used more
systematically than we'd imagined to spread disinformation and to
promote fear.

Fear that makes control of society simpler for those with the means
to achieve it.

But, if the Web hadn't been there, what would have happened?

Until the Web, corporations controlled mass communications.
Corporations that merged and became more powerful over time. And
that were, naturally enough, increasingly aligned with the
government.

By now, "news" might have become simply the daily reading of scripted
government pronouncements.

Independent websites that can reach millions mean disinformation is
common. But they offer legitimate competition with corporate news
outlets as well.

Competition is positive, in general, and often essential for things
to work.

Add the rise of cellphone videos to the mix. Videos combined with
mass distribution on the Web means stories that news outlets are
forced to cover.

The Web has arguably staved off one aspect of "1984".

FOSS has been equally important at its level. It hasn't achieved the
type of recognition that the Web has. So, I don't know if many people
think about this part.

Linux has binary blobs, now, and those are a matter that calls for
thought. Plus, there are things like the Intel Management Engine
which mean that hardware itself may not be trustworthy.

But, if FOSS and Linux weren't there, there would be no alternative
to programs and OSes that could have anything at all under the hood.
How many people reading this seriously consider Windows to be
trustworthy?

And hasn't FOSS played a key role in the rise of the Web? Even Micro-
soft was caught, once, running a $25M campaign for its Windows
servers on Linux servers.

The individuals who were collectively responsible for the Web and
FOSS in their modern forms have made it more difficult for George
Orwell's vision, that of the boot on the human face forever, to come
true.

And you're at the heart of one of the more significant threads of
FOSS history.

You don't define FOSS. No one individual does. GNU is more like a
part of a balanced FOSS meal. But, you, personally, are one of the
most significant figures of the 20th Century.

You're also human. FOSS projects need to be structured so as to
factor some of the "human" part out. It's a point that you need to
work on even after three decades. In fact, especially after three
decades, at this point in your career.

In short, get your act together.

You've suggested that you own glibc personally to the extent that
you could, if you so decided, force a fundamental change of tone in
the project.

The remarks are ill-advised.

I don't mean that the "joke" itself is that significant. It's been
there for years, after all. But an order to restore it subsequent
to removal, an order based on your personal authority, would
change things.

No, a combination of your personal authority and the persistence
of one enthusiastic Social Justice Warrior who refers to himself
as a "freedom fighter" doesn't constitute consensus.

glibc isn't supposed to be about "freedom fighters". Is that in
the charter?

"We are Freedom Fighters
Social Just-ice or Bust-ice
The purpose of glibc
Is to set you and me free
IRL is where Justice shall be"

It's supposed to be about code. Which will then empower people
IRL. It's a bad idea to turn a FOSS project into a Social Justice
platform on a whim.

This isn't one of the contexts where you're supposed to demand
things based on your position or status.

glibc isn't likely to fork over the issue. But such a move by you
would be comparable, in terms of ramifications, to the FreeBSD CoC
change.

One consequence would be that involvement of disciplined Coders in
one of the key components of the FOSS world would tick down over
time.

I don't foresee a mass exodus. But this sort of thing is on the rise
and should be noted.

FOSS projects are tricky enough as it is. People come for a
variety of reasons. Sometimes they feel that others involved are
[redacted] but they stick it out for the common good. To sup-
port the actual goals of the project.

The recent shift, in more than one project, to Social Justice
perspectives will discourage actual coders from joining. Social
Justice Warriors (or SJWs) will be attracted and overall quality
will drop.

A friend at Gentoo, one of the key figures in that distro, states
that he's already seeing a mix which includes too many non-
coders.

My Gentoo associate notes, "They don't actually write code, they
are there for "community cohesion". They edit a dozen wiki pages
and write hundreds of emails. iow: negligible, replaceable."

Let SJW get a foothold in glibc and natural selection will shift
to people who are welcomed more for their views on external
matters than for their skills and levels of commitment.

That's fine for some projects. The projects are useful, but not
essential. But it would be irresponsible, at best, to turn glibc
into a Social Justice platform.

I learned recently about the FreeBSD CoC changes. Mass banning of
anybody who so much as questioned the pronouncements of the
Moral Arbiters? Regulating language practically down to the emoti-
con level?

It was the end of the FreeBSD project as something to be taken
seriously.

No offense to FreeBSD is intended by that remark except where it's
due. I was at the "B" in real life, after all, not long before the "SD"
was added. Under different circumstances, I'd have been a BSD
person. But the CoC is a CRoC.

The relevance of the FreeBSD CoC issue is that both issues, the CoC
and the glibc abortion debate, institutionalize the role of SJWs in
FOSS.

The FreeBSD CoC, as a related note, was copied word for word, in
places, from a SJW site.

Surely, though, there should be no problem with shifting glibc's
focus to Social Justice. Everybody in the project will agree on
everything that happens outside the project. Because everybody
knows that people are patient and kind.

Or perhaps it doesn't work like that.

You're old enough to remember "I'd like to teach the world to sing...
in perfect harmony". Do you pretend to believe in that pretty
picture?

I've read a bit by you, now and then, Stallman, over the decades.
You're an idealist, in some respects, but you're not the "Tiptoe
through the Tulips with Me" type.

I imagine you as being more like the xkcd scene where you
sleep next to a katana, prepared to battle at a moment's notice
with the Forces of Evil that circle around you. I'm not poking fun;
the xkcd was great and you apparently accepted the gift of an
actual katana from somebody.

If group projects work -- most group projects in life -- it
happens because contexts are limited to a narrow focus. That is
how glibc and other FOSS projects need to be handled. Is this
correct or incorrect?

If focus is broadened, it doesn't go well.

While reading about the FreeBSD CoC changes, I stumbled across a
project named "Opal".

One person in Opal wanted a developer kicked out of that project
because the developer was transphobic in real life. So, instead of
making progress on code, the group was forced to discuss which
side had the right to be offended by what.

But you're O.K. with bringing this to glibc, one of the most complex
and critical components in the FOSS ecosystem.

A component that has a more important role to play than to serve
as a Social Justice platform on matters which are only tangentially
related to FOSS.

Some people consider me to be a SJW myself now. If it's true,
perhaps I'm making up for lost time after decades of hiding from
the world. But, and this is the key point, SJW issues don't usually
belong in pull requests.

Or, Dr. Stallman, in orders from a deity on-high who expects people
to kow-tow.

Don't assert that the supposed "joke" isn't the type of thing I'm
talking about. There's a way to settle this part. If the "joke" is
about "censorship", may I submit the SIGCHLD patch that others
have talked about?

It's a serious proposal. If I submit the SIGCHLD patch, will it be
accepted? If not, perhaps the "censorship" issue is a red herring.

I've talked, up to this point, about the fact that an order to
restore the "joke" would be a lapse of judgment on your part. There
is a related issue that should be noted.

A project may need a final arbiter. Somebody to whom decisions are
escalated when they can't be settled in other ways. Such a person
"owns" the project, in a sense.

But once the project reaches a certain point, in terms of scale and
of importance, he or she needs to butt out of lesser issues that
might be perceived, correctly or incorrectly, as being about ego.

Regards, Robert Kiraly (the Old Coder)
@BoldCoder
https://haggishell.com/

My Linux distro will start to appear on laclin.com this Summer.
25 years in the making.