Re: changing flavor of the linux world? was: craig sanders
[I almost made this a private reply, feeling it was off-topic. I'm
now not tottaly sure it is off-topic, since I think developer
relations /are/ an issue for debian, and will become more so as the
project grows in size]
On Wed, Nov 15, 2000 at 04:01:16PM +0100, Russell Coker wrote:
> On 2000-11-15 15:50, Jules Bean wrote:
> >On Wed, Nov 15, 2000 at 03:38:13PM +0100, Russell Coker wrote:
> >> the course of 10 years. In fidonet days Craig was just one of many
> >> technically skilled people who didn't mind telling idiots to fuck off...
> >
> >Indeed, you think that's a good thing? I've told people to fuck off in
> >the past, but I can't remember an instance that I'm proud of..
>
> I don't generally use the word "fuck", but apart from that I write many
> messages that are similar to Craig's. I have no regrets about this.
Well, I can't speak for whether or not your messages were justified. I
haven't seen them. I don't recall you being as offensive (my opinion)
in public messages as I have seen Craig being. And on the occasion I
met you, you certainly weren't offensive.
There seems to be an assumption here that whether or not you use the
word 'fuck' and similar ones is an irrelevance. I don't agree that is
necessarily is. Consider the two putative replies to a foolish
question from a newbie:
a) That question is clearly answered in the documentation; please go
and read it.
b) You fucking wanker! It's fucking losers like you, you never fucking
read the docuemntation, that make this fucking project so fucking
unrewarding to work on. Why don't you just turn to serving food in a
fast food restaurant and never come back, since you're clearly not
intelligent enough to use a computer?
Both are sharp. They have similar real content. The second is a lot
more offensive. If I received the first reply, I'd think "Oops, that
was stupid of me. Maybe I better do some more reading before I ask
any more silly questions. If had received the second, I'd be clear
of that project like a shot (maybe, I'm quite thick-skinned
actually). Which would, presumably, be a loss; cooperation is
important in open source projects.
>
> >> One thing that you really need to learn is that the Internet is run in an
> >> anarchistic fashion. You can't force people to do what you want. If
> >> people do things you dislike then you can filter out their email, use
> >> iptables/ipchains to block their IPs, and pretend that they don't exist.
> >
> >All of which is true, I guess, but I don't think it changes the moral
> >fact:
> >
> >Gratuitously offending and upsetting people is wrong.
>
> Being stupid and refusing to learn is what I consider "gratuitously offending
> and upsetting".
>
> >Some people are saying that Thomas should just ignore Craig. There's
> >merit in that view.
>
> Or he could just refrain from doing whatever he has done to earn a fuck-off
> message from Craig. Craig doesn't send out such messages
> randomly...
My (informal, subjective) measure of craig has him being (a) right on
about 50-70% of arguments which I've followed him, and him being
unnecessarily offensive on quite a few. (Not a very high percentage;
most arguments don't degenerate. But when they do, craig sure flings
the whatever...). Given that being right is, in many case, subjective
(e.g. whether or not Darren handled the vote situation appropriately;
that's a subjective judgement), you seem to be saying that Thomas
should stop disagreeing with Craig. Doesn't quite seem like the right
answer.
>
> >Do you really think it's OK to upset and offend people? Would you
> >stand by someone who, when on a train, stoop up and told his fellow
> >passengers they were all wankers? Would you stand by someone who
>
> If someone told the so-called "graffitti artists" that they are wankers then
> that would be good. Also swearing at people who smoke in the non-smoking
> carriage, spit on the floor, put their feet on the seats, etc is
> acceptable.
Maybe. Maybe not if there are other bystanders whom you'd offend with
the language. In any case, your examples are about people actually
'doing things' -- which gives me some sympathy. I find it hard to
believe that such vituperation is ever justified against someone just
because they hold a wron opinion.
>
> >regularly in his canteen at work told the cooks they were losers stuck
> >in a dead-end job?
>
> A friend told me the story of how he had the wrong meal delivered to him in a
> restaurant. AFTER he had started eating the meal was taken away from him and
> then delivered to the person who ordered it (he could recognise his
> fork-marks in the food). Calling the staff of that restaurant losers would
> be an understatement, I would have told them all to fuck off and walked out
> without paying!
Despite the fact that it was probably only one or two who colluded in
the wrong-doing, and the rest may well have been hard-working, polite
and intelligent?
>
> >Do you really think that just because debian is a cooperative anarchy,
> >we should have no standards of decency? [I'm not necessarily that such
> >standards are codified or enforced, I'm suggesting that most of us
> >think they exist, deep down]
>
> We do have standards of decency. Craig behaves in a decent fashion.
Well, obviously those are subjective. I disagree. I'm surprised at
how many people seem to agree with you.
>
> >I think that to work together in a large project, it is an important
> >exercise to show respect for other participants, even when you think
> >they're wrong about something.
>
> Unless they know little about what they talk about, think that they know a
> lot, and try telling people who know much more than them how to do things.
Certainly Thomas knows a lot, about a lot of things relevant to this
project. I don't know how much he knows about the argument in
question, since I haven't read it. I certainly feel I have reason to
respect him.
I think we drifted from my point, though. I don't feel it is /ever/
acceptable for one member of debian to engage is such a powerful ad
hominem attack against another. I'm not actually saying that I think
any sanctions are remotely appropriate, but I do think a wrong was
done.
Jules
Reply to: