Return to

The Linux Kernel Adopts A Code of Conduct


on Twitter, disagreement is harassment. So it’s obviously an attempt to circle the wagons around this person and shield them from any harassment [disagreement].


My favorite question is asking those kinds of people to define the terms they’re using. They pretty much never have an answer.


Exactly. I’m tempted to open a github issue with the coc.

Can we define these terms?


Do it!


I know there’s more to this issue than just one point, but I just wanted to voice my concern for one single word: inclusive.

Being “inclusive” for the sake of inclusivity is very dangerous, and probably what Linus has been fighting against all along. Maybe without realizing it.

In my mind, inclusivity has no place in a project as important as the Linux kernel. You become a part of the project based off your skills. If you can’t cut it, you’re told as much. You take that information (or criticism), and you either build off it and improve, or you leave. You don’t get an award for trying, you are rewarded for being successful and skillful.

That doesn’t mean I completely agree with how Linus has reacted to situations. It does suck to be shit on like that, it does make for a stressful and unpleasant work environment. I don’t do well with that type of supervisor, and I do feel like it can be detrimental to productivity. But guess what? It’s his project, and he’s the creator. And so far his “style” has maintained a very high quality end product for nigh on 30 years.

I just feel like throwing the word “inclusive” in there is lazy and vague. It can be used by anyone, on both sides of a conflict, as a weapon. A lot of that Code of Conduct is vague and very open to interpretation.

But maybe I’m way off base.


i’m not interested in turning it into a troll, I’m just noting the terminology being used. This entire issue could’ve been avoided if they picked a less hyperbolic author.


Unfortunately, my Github is linked with a silicon valley tech startup, so if I start raising hell in that repo, I’m afraid I might get fired.

If someone else wants to, I’ll watch the fireworks.


If this is the case then be a better representative. Don’t project your failings as a human being on to others with rules that you intend and require to regulate you.

This is a constant and systemic failing of ideology of “progressivism” that blocks progress.

Lead by example not with a whip.


Ok, genuine question to @marasm. Why does having a CoC mean that project leaders can’t tell contributors their skills are not up to scratch? Believe me, you can be direct and honest with people without needing to use swear words or ad hominem attacks.

TBH they should be able to do that without a CoC, and people shouldn’t feel like they need a CoC as a blanket, but we are where we are…


No, having a CoC certainly can allow the leaders to critique contributors. I’m saying by just throwing the stipulation that it is expected that “inclusive language” should be used is vague, and can lead to problems.

What if a contributor starts crying that they aren’t being included when Linus tells them their code is crap? They’ll point to the CoC and say they should be included anyway. It adds an unnecessary layer of PR garbage that was never needed before. Telling people they should “use inclusive language” is unnecessary. The idea and meaning of “inclusive language” should be defined better.


People seem to be so afraid that the CoC will be missused by people to get in even if their code is subpar, but the people who enforce the CoC are the people in charge of the project, and mostly everyone who is against the CoC seem to have the opinion that the status quo is good enough and that the current leadership is more than good enough.

The current leadership of the kernel project are the ones who will be deciding what would be deemed as breaking the CoC, are you saying that you don’t trust them to be able to see the difference between telling someone their code isn’t good enough, and telling them they are an idiot and they are shit and should essentially quit coding because their code wasn’t good enough?

The difference here is if someone starts making a fuss over “inclusivity” because their code was rejected for not being good enough no one will care and people will think of the person complaining as the one breaking the CoC (i.e not taking constructive critisism with grace)

At the end of the day it comes down to the people in charge of the project on how the CoC will be interpreted and enforced, and those people didn’t change over night because they put up a CoC. It is there simply to make it easier for people to understand what is acceptable behaviour and what is not. And it is definetly not acceptible behaviour to missuse it so you can “be included even if your code is subpar”.

At the end of the day the CoC are just a few lines of text, who decides haven’t changed, the only things that have changed is that there now are guidelines that states that they expect you to act professionaly.

Being inclusive in the project is not the same as having to include bad code, it simply means, “don’t be an ass towards other people because you want to be an ass”. If someones code is subpar you can easily let them down and tell them they need to improve before their contributions will be accepted using inclusive and non abusive language.


So why didn’t they define harassment. I don’t think anyone disagrees that the leadership are the ones deciding, so why don’t they come to a concensus and decide what it means so everyone knows?


in a sane world, this would always be the case, and therefor inclusivity and diversity would always be welcomed because, in a sane world, everyone would dispense with people trying to skirt the rules with crocodile Tweets, and ballyhooery would never be taken seriously.

This is not the way things tend to go. Ever. It is very much the reverse.

But that is getting offtopic so I’ll leave it there.


Let me interject for a moment…
Are people genuinely switching over to BSD because of this? From an end user perspective how does this actually effect anyone besides pc legal crap in the license? Could we see censorship and excuses to put proprietary crap in the kernel like with firefox? I honestly don’t see how people are construing some non-offense to gender studies majors clause as the end of the kernel, that being said I do think as soon as linus fully retires it more than likely will go to shit as the development turns into an oppression race. For right now you can always use an older kernel and wait for a newer one to be forked, alternatively it really shouldn’t matter for at least 10 years, at which point there should be alternative kernels or forks of linux in the event it does go to shit.


FreeBSD is even worse with it’s blatant SJWness lol, NO SIMULATED PHYSICAL CONTACT

Comments that reinforce systemic oppression related to gender, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability, mental illness, neurodiversity, physical appearance, body size, age, race, or religion.
Unwelcome comments regarding a person’s lifestyle choices and practices, including those related to food, health, parenting, drugs, and employment.
Deliberate misgendering.
Deliberate use of “dead” or rejected names.
Gratuitous or off-topic sexual images or behaviour in spaces where they’re not appropriate.
Physical contact and simulated physical contact (e.g., textual descriptions like “hug” or “backrub”) without consent or after a request to stop.


I think someone on r/Linux said that he was going to go over to bsd


It’s like people are surprised that a project (in part) born from the idea that software should be free, which in itself was derived from a project built at Berkeley (of all places) would somehow have liberal people with liberal thoughts involved in its maintenance.

Clearly defined within the CoC.

Yes, that will save them from those rascally liberals.


They need to call it the Code Of Conduct: Kernel

So they can have COCK VIOLATION as a breach of it.


OpenBSD, not FreeBSD. FSF has been full of tranny-love for years, check out the libreboot founder’s sex change operation post a few weeks ago with full pics, great stuff. Regardless, I don’t see why you would throw out years of distro knowledge and config files with something like arch or debian and jump to BSD because you disagree with the politics.


I’m sorry. But aside from there being some pretty poor definitions, this looks to me like a pretty decent CoC. I don’t see the problem with this.

Yes, it could use to have some of it’s definitions redefined to be more concise, and easily translated into what it actually means, but otherwise, I don’t see a problem.

Am I missing something? Or are people just running with the nightmare scenario because they rather would like to treat people like crap to begin with?

Hell, even Linus himself has said he knows that he could be gentler, but he hadn’t seen a reason to until now.

If even the creator of the project is willing to re-evaluate his own conduct, why isn’t anyone else? Why are so many people suddenly up in arms about this? It baffles me beyond all concept of comprehension.