The Code of Conduct didn't even come into this - the community leader asked Larry to leave the community when he figured that the board reviewing the supposed violation wasn't going to find that it actually was a violation. Or, in other words, this was someone completely ignoring the process because he was in a position of power.
> That information, Garfield says, made it to Drupal's Community Working Group (CWG), which concluded there was no code of conduct violation.
Or, from his own writing on the subject:
> Eventually that information made it to the Community Working Group (CWG), who concluded "there was no code of conduct violation present for [them] to take any action on".
> Dries, from what I understand, was first informed, without my knowledge, of the matter in early February, by the CWG.
Curious that the CWG referred the matter to him as part of their documented process (i.e. when an issue exceeds the scope of their charter). You may not be inclined to believe a word they say, but at the very least Larry's timeline does not contradict this detail as provided by Megan / Dries:
> The Community Working Group, which is part of Drupal’s governance structure, provided conflict resolution. When it became clear that some of the issues raised went beyond the scope of their charter, they determined that it was appropriate for the matter to be escalated to Dries. This is consistent with their existing policy and process.
Regardless, multiple decisions were made before Dries and Larry talked, and it is your characterization of Dries as a meddler who is circumventing a process that I am declaring untrue by anyone's accounting of the facts.
We don't live in a binary world, there are other options here besides Dries abused his power or Dries did everything right... for example, the process itself may be deficient and in need of reform. Before slinging mud, we should at least consider that possibility.
That would require that someone provides some evidence that this had nothing to do with what the accused suggests it's about - as it is, all we have is a short jump from being harassed because Gor to being kicked out of the community. That sort of thing is, unfortunately, quite common - I have friends within the scene who've lost their jobs because someone sent a picture to their bosses. The world is largely not a bastion of tolerance towards people who practice alternative relationship styles and sexualities.
I believe Dries's words in his apology post were sincere, so I do submit that as evidence but understand you may find him untrustworthy. However, the willingness of people who practice BDSM who actually work for him to speak out on that post provides even more compelling evidence that Dries isn't known for discriminating on that basis:
If Preston and other BDSM practitioners like him are fired from Acquia or removed from the Drupal community, I'll eat whatever crow you care to dish up.
Unfortunately some kinks are judged harsher than others. For example, if someone got sent a picture of their employee engaging in some flogging or even caning in the privacy of their bedroom, it's unlikely they'd care - but e.g. a branding ceremony? Needle or scalpel play? Presence at a high-protocol, strictly gendered event (e.g. male clothed, female nude)? Making a speech at a wedding between people in a relationship based on power exchange, that touches on the inequalities those people have chosen to make part of their relationship? All of those things bother some people a lot, potentially to the point of severing all ties that they legally could.
If he has harmed someone in the community or been put in a position to harm someone by his place in the community, you'd think Dries would be able to say that. If there's a police investigation or court case sufficiently far along that Dries thinks it's likely it happened, you'd think he'd be able to say that. But he's said absolutely nothing aside from his vague "because equality" statement.
Code(s) of Conduct should be used only for that second word - conduct. How you behave inside a community or conference; your personal beliefs should be kept out of it.
Just write code and stick to business, preferably under a pseudonym. This gets difficult when contributing to projects for which you need to sign a developer agreement for legal reasons though.
My experience says that codes of conduct are written with the express desire of keeping all open source communities left-leaning.
I've talked to many people about the matter and some of them say that open source is supposed to be left-leaning, and that those are its principles. That ignores that right-leaning users should also be able to benefit from open source values (privacy, for example) and contribute code, and that not everybody who uses open source has to be a supporter of the open source principles (for example, I use an open source browser because it's the best, not because I like open source better than closed source).
As usual, depends on the contents of the code. That kind of legalese is just tooling to organize discourse.
You won't build an open minded community if its rules mandate righthink. Doesn't mean you can't try and protect people from the kind of stalking and abuse that has happened here.
It's a shame that we have to have more than "be professional and don't be a dick" as community guidelines, but if we have to might as well do it correctly.
Someone who doesn't know that he has to "be professional and don't be a dick" is likely to disregard the code of conduct. And you don't need a code of conduct to kick someone out of a project because he's being unprofessional and/or a dick. Therefore codes of conduct are useless.
> And you don't need a code of conduct to kick someone out of a project because he's being unprofessional and/or a dick.
Unfortunately, my experience is that you actually do need to be able to point to something (a) precise and (b) that the community broadly agrees is a valid reason, in order to kick someone out without practically dissolving your community. A code of conduct is simply an agreement which states the community's beliefs on what are valid reasons to kick someone out.
I agree. It at least feels like it's more a way to showcase your beliefs and give a list of things that may be used to justify actions later, rather than something constructive.
There definitely is an "oh, we're doing this now" moment when any project or group reaches a size where a code of conduct is published.
It's like wearing a cowboy hat to a meeting. It's not that there's anything wrong with the symbol itself, but it perhaps represents some tedious baggage
Well, what would a right-leaning code of conduct look like right now? "The Drupal project rejects the rights of gay people to marry each other"? "The Drupal project declares that men and women are better suited to different roles, and men will code and women will do graphic design"?
What are you proposing for a not-left-leaning code of conduct, either neutral or right-leaning?
Docker is to containers what OAUth2.0 is to cryptography: a roll your own solution with a wide complexity.
Whereas jails/zones/VM have a complexity that is mutualized, docker have a feature of being more flexible which comes at the price that you may introduce more escape scenari.
As a result like in cryptography, Docker is kind of a roll your own crypto solution, secured by obfuscation that may if you don't have a lot of knowledge on the topic your own poison.
From this article you can derive 2 conclusions:
- docker is good for a big business having enough knowledge to devote a specialized team for handling the topic, because FEATURES
- jails/zones are more adapted for securing small business
Formation costs money. Losing a gifted student can set back the agenda of a university having almost strong enough results to publish.
When you have the person actually having the bleeding edge knowledge, you can fund him or her to end the work and either publish it (prior act) or develop a usable result that can be patented.
But most of the effort, especially in countries with public education, has been supported by the taxes of the locals.
It is not USA the problem here. Europe and other place with public education are a bunch of bullied that are masochistic and love to be stolen.
When a company claims that it will only steal from foreign entities for your national interest, and never you because you are a special snowflake, it tend to lie.
A pathological thief will steal everyone as long as he is not stopped.
I want to sue you, your frelated milk killed my cat!
robotic voice You cannot. Ah ah! I am irresponsible since I do not qualify as having proven to understand what the public interest is, freedom or even humor... I am just a puppet in the hand of those who feed me with data and code.
[Klong] noises of a dwarf moving inside of the machinery.
robotic voice Let's have a nice chess game instead, and enjoy my mechanical Türk.
If you call linux: debian or ubuntu or centOS, even with unsafe defaults freeBSD is secured.
Compared to untuntu/debian/centOS freeBSD has got bleeding edge softwares coming from upstream. That is the power of SOURCE distribution. Theses packages being compiled it may suit you. I must admit FLAVORED packages (make.conf templates) make sense.
I remember being a linux sysadmins and building my openLDAP/python/php packages from source by hand that were 4 years old with envy wondering WHY?!
Since systemd and my migration to BSD I have no regrets.
PF, ipfw are way more powerful than any linux firewall tools.
I have upstream stable software in the stable distribution.
I don't have systemd.
I have jails... And I have no religion switching to openBSD for core servers that need security knowing I have very few knowledge costs in doing so.
And be it capsicum or privilege dropping I look at linux containers techno as a smoke screen for poor man's security through obfuscation.
My advice is be smart: don't trust me, but if you are in between experiment.
Next day 7am: get into the truck, don't forget to sign the daily contract, pays is monthly at the end of the month. Come tomorrow at 7am, if you did your job correctly you will have another contract.
I wish Apple would sell OSX licenses directly to customers. It would sidestep the whole clone thing, let enthusiasts build proper hackintoshes, and make it legal for businesses to support consumers who go down that route. Sure, make it illegal to OEM or to install for a third party; don't provide any support whatsoever; but let the hackers play without fear. I bet that awesome things would happen.
The Mac's entire brand identity can be summarized in three words: "It Just Works." Any time people see a machine running MacOS where those words are not true, it damages the entire brand.
Thus Apple is happy to forgo the extra revenue they could get by selling MacOS separately, since by doing so they can ensure that the world is not full of crappy beige boxes slapped together by incompetent OEMs sourcing parts from the lowest bidders with the word "Mac" attached to them.
I think that's only part of it. A larger part is that Apple is a hardware company. The profits come from the hardware. To sell the OS separately at a price that would justify the loss in profit from hardware wouldn't be feasible, particularly given its market share. Compare with Microsoft, which was able to profit largely because of its dominance.
It just work except when the System 7.5.3 was out and powerPC & 68K were coexisting.
The 'it just work' notably required to go in some arcane control to unfragment memory (yes RAM), and to do ctrl+ apple? + esc to kill unresponsive .... Adobe photoshop or illustrator on the PPC 7500 I used to maintain. THE application one needed.
The colometry profile for scanners and printers where not top notch, and well, real mac users (the one with a job) had to play with the devil switches and terminators on SCSI devices to put their work on external media...
We talk about graphist in the 90's here, not hardcore geeks.
The "it just works" was a lie. It was way more an expensive status tool.
The only stuff that differentiated mac users from PC users, was how much software they were cracking and sharing without any concerns or moral questions.
I sometimes feel the predominance of mac users among "top geeks" is a bad sign.
The stability of modern operating systems indeed makes it easy to forget how often we dealt with system crashes (remember the bomb?), especially with resource intensive applications, and even more so when switching between them.
Yet a lot of work indeed got done. The number of newspaper design departments and graphic artists who relied on Macs is hard to underestimate. It was much more than just an expensive status tool. Back in the day, the Mac was a tool that a lot of people relied on, in spite of its flaws.
Apple doesn't take (much) action now, because it doesn't really affect their ecosystem. If businesses could support consumers that went down that route, it would eventually be easy to install Mac OS on arbitrary computers. Apple would definitely not be making money on that.
Hackers already play without fear. Apple rarely takes action, unless money is exchanging hands. But it's all about the consumer market in this case.
I stilll somehow feel this could become a support burden. Also it'd kill their highest end Mac market
(I certainly am not saying that their inability to seemingly update these Mac pros or even have a decent iMac pro alternative is beyond what I mean here. I feel that pain)
I wonder however if they charge a fat sum for it like they did back in the day for Snow Leopard Server if the margin would supplant some of that
But that's the problem - as you say, they don't really have or even want that market anymore. Their real high-end is now the laptops, which were never cloned even when they could be (because it's a humongous can of worms). Nobody in his right mind today would buy a Mac Pro or an iMac for computation, their value proposition in that area is ridiculous - they get bought by hotels, boutiques and architects for their design aesthetic. These people will never buy ugly clones or even know what a hackintosh is. There is nothing left that can be cannibalised by clones.
If Apple "liberalised" their enthusiasts' market, they'd gain huge goodwill, sustain their own ecosystem, make a few quid on licenses (nobody said they have to be cheap), and possibly even get software for free (think OSS drivers for devices they'd otherwise not have the resources to write or support). With all the telemetry they have today, they'd know at a glance things like popular architectures, OS performance on devices they've not tested, etc etc. And of course, the minute they see a market shift they don't like, they could pull it again. They certainly have a bit of cash they can burn on this sort of thing, sitting in those Bermuda accounts.
Maybe they could tie it to their developer accounts. I don't have one at the moment, but if I knew that it could give me an easy way to hackintosh, I'd be over it like white on rice.
One thing is for sure. Under no circumstance should they allow OEMs to make Mac hardware. I'd even go as far as to say to control for this all hardware that could be build by the end user (which could be a business or person I suppose) must be certified through the MFI program. If I was postulating a way for this to work, the only way I see it working is:
1) They charge yearly for the priviledge through either the developer accounts and deployment accounts (for businesses and individual devs) and direct sales. I would say to make up for any potential lost margin we are talking $400-700 for this. Just like back in the OS X server days.
2) I imagine all hardware will need to -no must need to- be MFI certified and likely I could imagine Apple not only getting their cut from that but perhaps every MFI part sold will have a hearse are chip that ensures authenticity and compatibility
3) this will never be something OEMs could partake in. As a stipulation for the MFI program I could see them stating that hardware can't be sold to OEMs only direct purchases.
In the most realistic scenario I can come up with that's how it would work. Even then I doubt Apple wants to or could otherwise make it viable. It could potentially do so much brand damage otherwise
Do communities needs sticks to be driven one sided way like cows?
At this point it feels like they kind of defy their reason to be and are pretty misused.