<sphalerite>
don't worry lufthansa, it's not like I wanted to buy a ticket or anything
<joepie91>
sphalerite: ehhh... :P
<andi->
haha, Java world, best world... I bought the flights to NixCon at Lufthansa.. I don't really like them but their are amongst those that are affordable and still offer proper legroom which is a big deal for me with >2m height :/
<sphalerite>
you're that tall? :o and I thought it was hard for me xD
<sphalerite>
what do you not like about them?
<andi->
I do not like "too big to fail"-style companies.. I have the feeling they are like banks..
<andi->
they are in institution
<infinisil>
Oh darn, I still haven't booked flight and hotel
<andi->
in general I can not recommend beeing tall.. at my first day at the new job a coworker asked me to come to his desk when I have a minute. Me thinking it would be some nice work went there right away... He asked me to get something from the tall locker next to his desk... :D
<sphalerite>
hahaha
<sphalerite>
I'm tall but not that tall, like ~1m90
<andi->
2.05m when I walk straight.. I bounced against so many doors that I started ducking on every door and that I try to walk not as tall as would be healthy..
<LnL>
infinisil: same :p
<infinisil>
LnL: I just know the longer I wait the more expensive it's gonna be
<LnL>
yeah, but... procrastinating
<infinisil>
It's a fight between my lazyness and <thing you have your money in, I forgot that word>
<samueldr>
wallet, bank account, mattress?
<sphalerite>
samueldr: dreams?
<sphalerite>
:D
<infinisil>
samueldr: Yes, wallet, thanks xD
<emily>
sphalerite: :D
* sphalerite
is updating one of the most important packages we have to cross-compile better
<sphalerite>
(nethack)
<andi->
If a tool provides "file editing" via $EDITOR what is the best practice these days? Create a clone in /tmp and copy it back on exit(0)? /me tries to remember an obvious gotcha that he forgot..
<sphalerite>
andi-: I'm guessing in-place editing is not appropriate?
<andi->
I am not sure... what is the users expectation?
<andi->
if things go wrong the file should be unchanged?
<sphalerite>
hmmm
<andi->
would you expect the same (temp) file to be opened if you edit it again (magically allows vim recovery files etc...)
<sphalerite>
so many questions :o
<gchristensen>
git edits it in place so if you close your editor non-zero you don't lose your changes
<andi->
well git has it "easier" (different) since the .commit_msg (or whatever it was) will be removed / recreated for the next commit :/
<sphalerite>
is there a way to cancel a commit with a nonempty commit message?
<andi->
yes, "hint: Waiting for your editor to close the file... error: There was a problem with the editor 'vim'.:
<gchristensen>
`sudo reboot` cancels with a non-empty commit
<andi->
m(
<sphalerite>
hahaha
<andi->
i still find it hard to judge gchristensen's comments of this sort ;)
<gchristensen>
oh, how did you interpret it? :)
<andi->
It could be the annoyed kind of response to that question like: `Why even deal with it?` Or just a funny/crazy solution :)
<gchristensen>
ah :) sorry... trying to be funny by reaching for the "biggest hammer" solution
<emily>
you could try to kill -9 git after your editor successfully quits and the commit message is read into the data structure, but before it's written out to disk
<andi->
I got used to that on the internet.. not knowing anything about quantum foo it feels like there is this quantum state tree because every message can be interprested many fold
<simpson>
sphalerite: If you're still looking for an answer: If your editor has a way to exit with a non-zero status code, you can use that. e.g. in vim, `:cq`
<andi->
The last days I've read about emacs again... I feel so tempted to just switch to it now but the downsides will be that I won't get the piece of code down that I want to be done.. :/
<emily>
joepie91: what counts as offtopic in a -chat channel? :)
<joepie91>
emily: it does say 'much less topical', not 'totally off-topic' in the topic :)
<joepie91>
(I know of a few 'offtopic' channels where tech is still a required aspects of topics, for example)
<srhb>
emily: for $foo-chat, $foo is off-topic, clearly! :-P
<andi->
thats subject to interpretation
<srhb>
(not really)
<emily>
srhb: no, if nixos was offtopic here it would be called #nixos-offtopic.
<emily>
it's called #nixos-chat, so you can chat about nixos here.
<rain1>
every sentence is 1 or 2 words longer than the space it's allowed in
<emily>
it's ok, you're only missing out on gems like
<emily>
"The Linux kernel community is a place without office politics, without
<emily>
subtle
<emily>
subtexts, without primate dominance dynamics."
<simpson>
Sounds about right. I remember getting yelled at by Linus in-person.
<emily>
congrats!
<emily>
they should make a tshirt :p
<simpson>
I guess. In retrospect, I'm not sure which side of the argument I support. We were doing KMS in the DRM subsystem, and Linus was upset that KMS appeared to be a big upset mostly for the sake of making some Red Hat corporate customer happy.
<emily>
I think you might have come around to see his side earlier if it hadn't been delivered by means of yelling.
<simpson>
Maybe, or maybe I was too biased by being one of the authors of the KMS code. I didn't yell back; I was a secondary yellee.
<simpson>
But mostly I feel now that GPU drivers shouldn't be so much in kernel, and also that the kernel should do a better job of talking about GPGPU and GPU capabilities and memory. Really, *all* of the code involved is flawed.
<emily>
right
<emily>
of course. I sympathise.
<emily>
although given Linus' positions on kernel design, that seems more like a broken clock being right twice a day situation to me >_>
<rain1>
do you think minix is a better design?
<simpson>
emily: It's all good. u'i uinai o'anai aucu'i
<joepie91>
[00:32] <emily> they should make a tshirt :p
<joepie91>
"I tried to contribute to the kernel, and all I got was a lousy yelling match"?
<emily>
joepie91: that would be dishonest. you'd have also gotten the tshirt
<joepie91>
lol
<simpson>
My patches got in, including a printk typo that (to this day?) is still there, but you have to have an old GPU to see it~
<emily>
rain1: *shrug* "everything is broken and terrible", but I guess Minix's core design is probably simpler? I'm not necessarily defending Tanenbaum in that specific fight, just I don't think all that much of Linus' architectural sensibilities in general.
<rain1>
ah
<joepie91>
andi-: anyway, my view on that email is that I understand where they're coming from, but that they're insufficiently distinguishing between intention and effect
<joepie91>
like, the options aren't "either a free-for-all, or an environment where you must forever second-guess"
<joepie91>
there's a lot of shades inbetween that come down to *doing your best* to not cause issues for other people, and if that sometimes goes wrong, so be it, and if you have some reason to be getting it wrong more often than others (despite your genuine best efforts), then so be iut
<joepie91>
it*
<andi->
I have very mixed feelings about all those CoC thingies... I don't think they solve real problems.. It is like with an insurance.. it gives you an exit strategy IMO..
<joepie91>
I think that they *can* be useful, but only a) if combined with actual enforcement, and b) not overspecified
<joepie91>
(because overspecification leads to rule-lawyering and various back-stabby behaviours)
<joepie91>
their primary purpose, when used correctly, is not to keep people from behaving poorly; it's to signal to those-who-are-usually-on-the-receiving-end-of-abuse that behaving poorly is not acceptable
<andi->
The CoC I can really identify with is basically: Don't be an asshole. Treat the other with respect.
<joepie91>
(and to some degree, to signal that to abusers)
<joepie91>
right
<andi->
everything else goes too far in either direction.. you can't specify what is "being nice" to an unspecified group means for each individual..
<joepie91>
I tend to phrase it a little more wordy to more clearly specify what the threshold is for 'being an asshole', but otherwise that is roughly my approach
<joepie91>
wordy? wordily?
<andi->
I wouldn't even try to get into that... That is up to interpretation of every again anyway..
<joepie91>
andi-: it's a first-pass heuristic; having a CoC does not exclude the need to explain to and deal with people
<andi->
There will be loopholes don't try to fix them.
<joepie91>
having dealt with people who try to bad-faith-redefine 'asshole'; I've found it to be necessary to *some* degree
<joepie91>
the clarifications are still vague and at-our-discretion, but clear enough that any such bad-faith-redefining is immediately apparant
<joepie91>
apparent*
<andi->
well what words do you find that have a common meaing to ALL of MOST people? Thats pretty hard. You also must stick to simple language otherwise you are discriminating...
<joepie91>
andi-: going to vary somewhat by the context in which it's used, but generally it's going to be something along the lines of "not discriminating people through eg. religion, sexuality, etc."
<andi->
there is a reason I did study CS and not something social.. My views are probably not those of the "professional" ones in that rea..
<joepie91>
so long as there's an "etc." you're generally good
<jasongrossman>
I personally only know two examples of CoC that have worked really well, and one is extremely simple (a college I used to work at) and the other isn't even written down (Religious Society of Friends).
<andi->
but are those less good? Why isnt it liste then?
<joepie91>
andi-: the reality is that some degree of social interaction is going to be necessary unless you plan on being a hermit for the rest of your life, CS or not
<joepie91>
and that social interaction is going to need to not be unnecessarily hurtful towards others
<andi->
I don't have an issue with most human interaction.
<andi->
I can only be as careful as I can be with people that I do not know..
<sphalerite>
jasongrossman: as in Quakers?
<joepie91>
andi-: sure, and if you do your best, you're going to be fine under any sanely-enforced CoC
<joepie91>
CoCs are meant to be used fuzzily because human interactions are fuzzy, they're not rigid operational rules like code
<andi->
well but isn't that COC then described as "Do your best."?
<jasongrossman>
sphalerite: Yes.
<joepie91>
andi-: do your best to stay within this set of behavioural bounds*, but yes, when I write a CoC (although I don't generally call it that), I explicitly include a part where I emphasize that it's about your intentions
<sphalerite>
jasongrossman: how does that work?
<jasongrossman>
sphalerite: Weeellllll, the fact that it doesn't need to be written down depends on a lot of social infrastructure that the Quakers have. For example (among the branches of Quakers I'm thinking of, which includes the founding branch) they don't grow fast, so new members are enculturated into a stable community.
<jasongrossman>
sphalerite: But I think the main point is that you get told that certain social things are expected, and if you want to do anything differently, e.g. be interpersonally shitty, you might get away with it (because there's no explicit rule against it) but you'd better have thought about it carefully.
<jasongrossman>
sphalerite: As long as "you'd better have thought about it carefully" is taken REALLY seriously, which it is in some communities, I think this works well.
<joepie91>
we have a similar mechanism at our local hackerspace
<sphalerite>
interesting!
<joepie91>
primarily around becoming a member
<jasongrossman>
sphalerite: If I understand the Torvalds stuff, one problem has been that he's felt entitled to NOT think carefully about how he words attacks on people. (BTW, I have a lot of respect for the fact that he's open to discussing his own behaviour.)
<jasongrossman>
joepie91: Awesome.
<andi->
That is where st stick to simple "Be excellent to each other!". Works for us :) (re: hackerspace)
<joepie91>
so like, anybody can visit when a member is present, there's no limit on it, no rule how often you can visit without becoming a member, and you can use all the facilities... and people are basically told exactly that: "there's no rule that keeps you from visiting indefinitely, but it's not going to help your social standing"
<joepie91>
(or well, usually it's phrased in terms of 'peer pressure', but the same idea)
<jasongrossman>
andi-: Yes, as long as people inform each other that it has to be taken seriously, I think that is very similar.
<joepie91>
it's more informally applied in many other areas; we don't have many rules, but transgressions of social boundaries are pointed out, and if you choose to keep misbehaving the consequences are yours
<emily>
yeah, anyone who's mad at Torvalds for essentially saying "many people have expressed I've hurt them and made the environment worse; I hear those concerns and am taking time off and will reflect and seek guidance on the matter so I can better uphold my position" is somewhat... questionable to me
<emily>
I was surprised, I thought it reflected really well on him
<joepie91>
that having been said: our hackerspace is *very* cohesive, compared to other hackerspaces
<jasongrossman>
joepie91: The rules about visiting and membership are exactly the same for Quakers!
<joepie91>
I don't think this would work for the more loosely organized hackerspaces for example
<andi->
joepie91: where is yours?
<jasongrossman>
emily: I STRONGLY agree. I think Linus's recent comments are really really excellent.
<joepie91>
we go so far that the hackerspace is explicitly UX-designed; eg. designed to encourage collaboration, particular desirable behaviours, etc.
<jasongrossman>
I'm glad we've got someone from The Hague in this discussion given the legal analogies!
<joepie91>
including seemingly small things like "the cleaning items are in the center of the shared workspace instead of a cleaning cabinet, so that people remember to clean stuff up"
<joepie91>
andi-: well okay technically it's just outside the hague, but that is functionally the same thing in NL :P
<andi->
turns out, I was on that website before...
<joepie91>
oh? :P
<emily>
oh, I'm considering moving to .nl soon; maybe I should visit :p
<joepie91>
anyway, tuesday is the 'official' open evening every week, but you can drop in most days and expect to find somebody there
<joepie91>
I don't think we have an English 'visitors' text on the wiki, so tl;dr: you can visit any time any member is present, as indicated by the open/closed sign in the top left of the page, every tuesday at 19:00 there's a barbecue, we're open virtually every tuesday and friday
* emily
nod
<joepie91>
most days people start rolling in around 15:00-16:00, most of the people leave around 22:00-23:00 and the last people usually stay until 02:00 - 06:00
<joepie91>
most everybody speaks English and will be happy to give you a tour of the place :P
<joepie91>
also, fairly easily reachable by public transport; there's a metro/tram/hybrid thingem that stops about a 10 minutes walk from the space, runs every 10-15 minutes depending on time of day when going there from Rotterdam, or every... 5 minutes? when coming from the Den Haag Laan van NOI train station (which is easily reachable by intercity train from most major cities)
edef has joined #nixos-chat
<joepie91>
andi-: btw, to give a bit more context on where I'm coming from with my points regarding CoCs... I've dealt with a lot of varying community management issues, ranging from large IRC channels to small cohesive groups to large boards with a 4chan-esque audience
<joepie91>
in cohesive environments, "don't be a dick" works well; but it doesn't scale beyond a certain point, especially if you're running something that has a tendency of attracting asshats
<joepie91>
at that point you need some vague indication of what you consider unacceptable, mostly just to act as a "you're not wanted here" signal that reduces your moderation effort for the (regularly occurring) effort to "very low" by making it a point-at-the-rules affair
<joepie91>
and that keeps out most of the problematic people in the first place, because they can see that whatever they have in mind is not likely to fly
<joepie91>
that having been said, I've never seen a single environment where providing exhaustive lists of unacceptable behaviour worked
<joepie91>
in cohesive smaller groups, they tend to get ignored; in larger groups, they tend to just be used as a rule-lawyering venue
<joepie91>
"well these rules look exhaustive, and what I did isn't on there, so You Have No Right To Ban Me"
<joepie91>
and if you have a particularly crafty asshat that's good at riling up others... it can be very difficult to eject such people from your community as a "this is not a matter of discussion" decision, because at that point they'll have convinced others that Look At The Rules, I Did Nothing Wrong
<joepie91>
(these are the people who knowingly behave like an asshat, mind; not good-faith users who misstepped)
<joepie91>
tl;dr: community management is a difficult problem :P
<joepie91>
and as Twitter/Facebook/etc. found out, not something you can solve with automation or a rigid process
<andi->
joepie91: I totally agree.. I just think the hopes are set very high... People expect immediate effect or some effect by just having a CoC.. 2-3y ago I realized/read only AFTER a conference that they had a CoC.. Turned out they just added that on the website after I bought the ticket... not sure what they expected by doing that..
<emily>
people expect a slow, gradual change in culture signalled upfront by these messages
<joepie91>
everybody with community management has a CoC, so if we add a CoC, we also get community management, right?
<emily>
I agree that stamping a CoC on things doesn't mean anything by itself.
<joepie91>
emily: unfortunately quite a few people do
<joepie91>
(expect immediate effect)
<emily>
joepie91: in the case of Linux?
<joepie91>
oh no, just in general, no idea about Linux
<emily>
maybe I'm more cynical than the average person ^^;
<joepie91>
emily: for Linux specifically, people's skepticism of the genuineness of Linus' statements seems to have tempered expectations somewhat
<andi->
It will be nice to see how that will ever be effectice on the LKML... It will stay an interesting topic for a few more weeks/years/...
<joepie91>
don't know if this idiom exists in English, but "trust comes on foot, and leaves by horse"
<emily>
joepie91: I was kind of wondering whether it was heartfelt or triggered by other maintainers/Linux Foundation staging some kind of intervention. but honestly I think it's too candid for that
<emily>
writing this kind of thing is embarrassing and he could have made it less of a mea culpa if he just wanted to minimally satisfy people
<joepie91>
emily: yeah, it set off no insincerity heuristics for me, and that's rare :P
<joepie91>
that's no guarantee of course, but still hopeful
<jasongrossman>
joepie91: I don't think that idiom existed in English, but it does now.
<jasongrossman>
joepie91: (Although it raises the question of trust among horses.)
<jasongrossman>
(a) I agree with joepie91 that it seems heartfelt, and (b) even if it isn't, unless Linus is actively working to undermine it it has to be a good development.
jackdk has joined #nixos-chat
<emily>
you know what else comes by foot and leaves by horse?
<emily>
horse thieves
<joepie91>
lol
<samueldr>
nobody would suspect the horse thief coming by car