felipec

> How you treat other people when you communicate actually is important.

In software the user is important. If you are the maintainer of a major project and you hurt the user because somebody was mean to you, you shouldn't be the maintainer of a major project.

Why does that point has to be explained?

> Do you want to rant on the internet about how right you are and how stupid everyone else is, or do you want your bug fixed?

What part of "I don't even care what they do" wasn't clear? I made my objective explicit: to show *GNOME*'s shitty practices.

1. What makes you think I didn't use a patched version? 2. I said I'm using kitty now, I don't care what they do.

I made it very clear the point wasn't about me, or my patch, it's about *their practices*.

DHH didn't refer to foreign-born because that's not what he was talking about. I made it very clear in the article that this is a perfectly valid definition of "native": "living or growing naturally in a particular region : indigenous".

You are not even trying to understand what DHH is saying.

This is the problem with modern discourse: people don't even listen. You don't care what DHH meant, all you care about is the hedges on speech you want to impose on others.

That's not what you claimed. You not only claimed he said there are many non-white people, you claimed DHH *literally* said that's bad.

You are assuming an implication that isn't there.

He never said "I want fewer non-white people".

Every rational person knows what happens to a city when there's a massive influx of immigrants. So we all know what he is talking about, and it's not what you wrongly assumed.

> He's literally saying that britain is now bad because there's too many non-white people living there.

No, he didn't. That's something you are hallucinating he said.

[flagged]

That's what wokeness does to open source projects.

I was banned from the RubyGems project by simply saying "no satisfactory resolution from the development team".

Now woke people are walking away from RubyGems because Ruby Central wants to align with DHH. I say good riddance.

Software should be about technical merit, not ideological agendas.

There's nothing racist there.

Wrong. You don't need a CoC to do moderation.

All CoC's are ever used for is to silence people the moderators don't like.

Autoritarian organizations never explain their reasons.

Wrong. The fork was planned since a long time ago.

There is Rust support and there is a couple of small drivers, that's about it.

The decision being disputed is not going to be affected by the shenanigans of Hector Martin, the process is going to be followed as usual.

David Airlie summarized it nicely:

> That is the process we are committed to, everyone has a voice and gets to be heard, and we move forward in the appropriate manner with each maintainer. Bypassing maintainers is the last resort, not engaging at all with maintainers isn't a productive way forward either. Your below attempt is trying to create a technical solution to a social problem.

So the technical discussion is going to continue in order to attempt consensus and the leadership (i.e. Linus Torvalds) is going to step in only if no consensus is achieved. He is waiting for the discussion to play out.

Everyone is going to be heard, including maintainers who openly admit they don't want Rust in linux.

Linus didn't say he was the problem, he said he should consider that maybe he was the problem.

That's an invitation to self-reflection.

We all should consider that, in every discussion.

The opposite is to think that everyone who disagrees is by definition wrong, which can never be productive.

As if he didn't read the comment about not wanting the cross-language code to spread like cancer in the most uncharitable way possible.

The Nokia N9 used Wayland.

Both macOS and Windows have more configuration options than GNOME.

Many people are arguing that the Linux Foundation had no choice but remove the Russian maintainers due to USA sanctions. That is not true. They had choices, and here I explain why.

Since when is it a crime to be wrong?

I doubt it. Do you have an example of public code using modulo with negative numbers correctly?

The point of debates it not to convince your interlocutor. Not a single debate in history has ended in the other side changing their position.

The point is to convince the audience, and if you think no audience would consider the notion of a flat Earth possible, you underestimate human stupidity.

Everything should be up for debate, otherwise ideas become -- as John Stuart Mill called them: dead dogma.

The Makefiles CMake generates are not distributed in the tarball. So no, we are not talking about apples to apples.

No, not all build systems are the same. CMake doesn't rely on generated scripts like autotools does.

Of course, everything is possible. But the design of autotools and the obfuscation of m4 scripts made it much more easy to sneak in.

* I do not argue that all experts use !pointer, but most of them do, and if you understand the machine code that will be generated, it's for a good reason.

* I did not say the variable being static was "superior", I said they were advantages.

* If you have a large array and want a linked list with pointers to the elements, then just create a `struct node` with a pointer. The linux-style intrusive linked-list allows both use cases.

Dunning-Kruger shows again that people who believe they are proficient at reading technical articles are not as proficient as they think they are.

Yes, it's simple and obvious and yet most Rust advocates do not get it. They use the performance of all C code as proof that even experts can't write safe C code.

Sometimes the obvious needs to be stated.

It's for the lack of a better word. I have been in projects where I contribute for many many years, and I don't even have commit access. Forget about making the release tarball, the only times I do that is when I'm the main/sole maintainer of the project.

Me too. But it's not going to happen.

That's because if I don't have any problems with a project that has rational leadership there's no point in me writing a blog post shining a light into something that doesn't exist, is there?

Have you heard of survivorship bias?

How exactly am I not putting myself on Junio's shoes?

If I were him I would do what's best for the project, not what's best for my ego. If I were wrong about a patch, I would simply admit I was wrong, and apply the patch. That's what every maintainer should do.

There's a difference between using authority in a way that moves the project forward and *abusing* authority to protect one's ego.

Junio does the latter.