Linux

47952 readers

1748 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
No misinformation
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, etc

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml

nooter692@lemmy.ml

MarcellusDrum@lemmy.ml

cypherpunks@lemmy.ml

cyclohexane@lemmy.ml

d3Xt3r@lemmy.nz

119

Much ado about "nothing" - Xe Iaso (==Goodbye NixOS) (xeiaso.net)

submitted 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) by lemmyreader@lemmy.ml to c/linux@lemmy.ml

83 comments fedilink hide all child comments

https://discourse.nixos.org/t/much-ado-about-nothing/44236

Not directly related to this blog post but from NixOS discourse forum, a tl;dr from another person about the NixOS drama here :

If you’re looking for a TL;DR of the situation, here it is:

    Nix community had a governance crisis for years. While there has been progress on building explicit teams to govern the project, it continued to fundamentally rely on implicit authority and soft power

    Eelco Dolstra, as one of the biggest holders of this implicit authority and soft power, has continuously abused this authority to push his decisions, and to block decisions that he doesn’t like

    Crucially, he also used his implicit authority to block any progress on solving this governance crisis and establishing systems with explicit authority

    This has led uncountably many people to burn out over the issue, and culminated in writing an open letter to have Eelco resign from all formal positions in the project and take a 6 month break from any involvement in the community

    Eelco wrote a response that largely dismisses the issues brought up, and advertises his company’s community as a substitute for Nix community

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] gianni@lemmy.ca 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Hold up, let me just make up some numbers real quick to prove how wrong you are!

[–] gian@lemmy.grys.it -3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

He is not wrong though.
Number aside, if you have a hard requirement that in a committee board there should be someone from a minority then you will end in a situation where the committee perform worse because the "forced" member has no merit to be in, or at least it is an very high probability.

[–] baru@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

where the committee perform worse because the "forced" member

Ah, the common strawman. A committee where everyone thinks pretty much the same is somehow better than one where a few have a different opinion?

Such discussions took place decades ago when pretty much every manager was only male. And they often honestly thought they did the right thing. When there were more women forced to be managers the group as a whole got better insights into different opinions. Which helped to see that certain things could be done a different way.

That to me is history, plus rather logical.

Having a few people with different opinions is further usually good for a committee. Though some like every single person to think the same, more efficient or something. If most think the same it's way easier to overlook something.

[–] gian@lemmy.grys.it 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

where the committee perform worse because the “forced” member

Ah, the common strawman. A committee where everyone thinks pretty much the same is somehow better than one where a few have a different opinion?

Sometime yes, sometime not.

It all depend on the context. The direction of a project ? Then maybe the fact that the committee has at least roughly the same vision is a good thing, it keep the project focused and progressing, as long as there is a way to offer suggestions.

A political group ? Then it is better to have more points of view, as long as you can decide something in the end.

There is not a single best solution.

Such discussions took place decades ago when pretty much every manager was only male. And they often honestly thought they did the right thing. When there were more women forced to be managers the group as a whole got better insights into different opinions. Which helped to see that certain things could be done a different way.

That to me is history, plus rather logical.

On the other hand I can point to examples where when a woman, to stay within your example, were put in charge the result were disastrous, so what ?
Maybe if we start to think that being in some groups does not inherently make you a better candidate to something than we will start to solve the problem.

Having a few people with different opinions is further usually good for a committee.

As long as they know what they are talking about yes, else it is just stupid.
The point of all this discussion is that Jon Ringer objected to have an hard requirement for one person in the committee need to be from a minority, which honestly is not that stupid thing to say.