/tech/ - Technology★

>implying Linux wasn't maintained by soy in the first place

cool op retard

>>1007637

>Volunteer your time

>Be henpecked by enforcement teams

>Allowing a consensus of trannies to determine your fate

Pretty sad.

Linux 4.19 was actually pretty buggy, for what its worth

Seems like it was a lot of bluster and hot air over nothing.

>>1007637

That was an anti-CoC retard trying to "make a statement" and "start a conversation" about how bad the CoC was. Also, the patch was rejected.

This is equivalent to a strawman argument. Nothing has really changed in the Linux development.

>>1007668

4.19 was already done before Linus took his vacation. No features were added orremoved.

And yes, Linux being buggy is to be expected. Not only is the kernel undergoing heavy changes to become a realtime kernel, everyone is having trouble debugging it. The wonders of a monolithic kernel with proprietary, unauditable blobs, and millions of lines of code.

I don't care about it. I'm not a Linux developer.

>>1007682

>users are not impacted policies that attract shit developers with hostile political agendas and drive away good ones

>>1007706

I believe in users who take responsibility over their own software. Users who do nothing but bitch about other people's work are nothing but whiners.

>>1007674

It was rejected... on the grounds the CoC doesn't cover previous commits. Also you should say CoC/Linux, Linux is only a kernel and it's the CoC what guarantees differently-abled people can develop it without cis abled white males rejecting their diverse additions for being "too retarded it doesn't even compile".

>>1007723

Buzzwords and strawman arguments. And you retards wonder why nobody takes you seriously.

>>1007728

You said the patch was rejected, how is stating the fact the patch was rejected because the CoC didn't cover pre-CoC code a strawman? And list the buzzwords, go ahead you lying faggot.

>you retards

Go back to reddit.

>>1007728

Rejected on the grounds the CoC doesn't cover previous commits, means it didn't prove jack shit. We'll have to see what happens if someone dares to write "fuck" in future commits.

>>1007747

I believe that users should take the time to develop software that's "unprofessional", "undisaster", and "unsterile". Suckless and Plan 9 exists today.

>>1007753

It won't happen because that's covered by the CoC.

>>1007731

>>1007753

>OK, so something that would simply be considered in some quarters as bad language isn't explicitly banned. The thing which differentiates simple bad language from "abusive, offensive or degrading language", which is called out by the CoC, is the context and the target. So when it's a simple expletive or the code of the author or even the hardware is the target, I'd say it's an easy determination it's not a CoC violation. If someone else's code is the target or the inventor of the hardware is targetted by name, I'd say it is

Nice of you to completely disregard stuff like this.

The patch was rejected because nobody agreed on it. The whole "it doesn't apply to previous commits" is a nice touch though.

Nothing has changed in Linux' development and nothing will change. But sure, keep circlejerking over the evil Jewish transexual communist sjw trying to destroy the world and shit.

>>1007799

>t. evil Jewish transexual communist sjw

Soy.

Oh shit nigga, what are you doing?

https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=154566676213892&w=2

Oh shit nigga. He did it again!

https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=154566477313479&w=2

>>1007637

>CoC Beacon will be privded in a software-as-a-service (SaaS) model

>SaaS

nicee ;^)