Valve Will Not Be Officially Supporting Ubuntu 19.10+

[Djhg2000]

I think that you should think this one over again because what you try to describe have nothing to do with Debian having a written code of conduct. Neither does a written code of conduct lead to "rules everywhere".

How can you even say that? A CoC is most certainly a set of rules and the fact that Debian didn't have a real CoC before is proof that CoCs are popping up in more places than ever. You cannot possibly believe this isn't an increase in rules towards them being everywhere. In fact, many of the supporters of CoCs want them to be everywhere.

It also has a lot to do with Debian implementing a CoC. Debian used to be just for a very closed and grumpy community where things were supposed to be done right instead of how everyone else was doing it. It's an elitist goal but that's exactly why I'm using Debian; things get worked out properly instead of settling for what the majority want.

Does that mean pissing off some people? You bet. Does it make the solutions inferior to a compromise everyone is happy with? Absolutely not.

This is why we have so many forks of Debian. People get pissed and fork it because they want to have their ideal solution while still wanting the rest of Debian. Say what you want about Devuan, they are standing by their ideals and while I don't mind SystemD I still have massive respect for the Devuan maintainers.

This is what I don't want to go away. This is why having a big CoC in the way of having maintainers argue things out is a bad idea. With a CoC you can throw out irrelevant arguments to frame whomever you want. All they need to do is address the irrelevant argument and you can turn it against them. Having a CoC is much like having public telnet servers in the build system; it's more open to everyone but it's also a huge liability.

[cusa123]

Nothing is understood, that makes the community ill, if it were only a misunderstanding it would be just as bad. And the second thing is that if it were for steam I do not care and since I do not see a title today that really is worth it! Neither that valve did the possible thing so that the companies happened to vulkan gaining a little less to use linux "steam". I hope that Google will sell videogames on its platform, in case it did not go so well but if you can sell them for local mode we may have a serious competitor to steam.
The second thing is that I agree to kill x86 but not in this way, at least trying to motivate to leave or repair their versions for x64 and using appimage or some other I'm already rotten from the libraries if that ends here.

[cynical]

Written rules on how to and how to not behave have been part of human civilization since we invented the written language. Sometimes I wonder about the age of people here considering that if they are old enough to work they must have missed all the legalize that covers the behavioural rules that apply at each workplace.

Such rules exists everywhere, it's just that sometimes they are not written down which means that they can be arbitrarily put against you, by writing down the actual rules as i.e Debian have done means that you can actually defend yourself against a defined ruleset and thus admins cannot just throw you out "just cause".

I've only worked at places where the assumption was that we didn't need to be told how to behave because we were all adults already.

The idea that the rules can't be used against you arbitrarily because they are written down is very naive. Take for example harassment. Sounds obvious not to harass people, right? Except some interpret a smile or hug emoji as a sign of sexual harassment. Next you will be saying that we should all be issued guidelines on appropriate emoji use...

It never ends because there is no limit to someone's ability to be offended.

[cynical]

To the person who bemoaned Debian's "PC" culture: find the nearest dustbin of history, and kindly throw yourself in. If you don't care about making tech communities more welcoming to anyone who isn't a white, straight man, you're the one with the problem.

When were they not welcoming? How would you even know about someone's gender/race/etc unless they advertised it? This movement to solve a problem that doesn't exist is one of the weirdest things I've ever seen.

[F.Ultra]

I've only worked at places where the assumption was that we didn't need to be told how to behave because we were all adults already.

The idea that the rules can't be used against you arbitrarily because they are written down is very naive. Take for example harassment. Sounds obvious not to harass people, right? Except some interpret a smile or hug emoji as a sign of sexual harassment. Next you will be saying that we should all be issued guidelines on appropriate emoji use...

It never ends because there is no limit to someone's ability to be offended.

I think that you then will be surprised if you go to HR and ask for your employment rules that you signed when you sought employment there, because they exist in 99% of workplaces. If the assumption was that you would behave as adults as you say then there indeed was rules so why are you now arguing that there where none? You can't have both.

I never said that written down rules never ever can be misused, my claim is that with unwritten rules this is 100% of the cases. With written rules you decrease that risk to a high degree. Where do you think it's most likely that you will be subjected to misuse by those in power, in a country where we have written rules or in Somalia where there is total anarchy?

That some interprets a smile or hug emoji as a sign of sexual harassment is a very good reason to have written rules that defines what harassment are. What you describe is exactly how things can escalate when there are no written rules, that is the slippery slope that you are so afraid of (and should be).

[F.Ultra]

How can you even say that? A CoC is most certainly a set of rules and the fact that Debian didn't have a real CoC before is proof that CoCs are popping up in more places than ever. You cannot possibly believe this isn't an increase in rules towards them being everywhere. In fact, many of the supporters of CoCs want them to be everywhere.

It also has a lot to do with Debian implementing a CoC. Debian used to be just for a very closed and grumpy community where things were supposed to be done right instead of how everyone else was doing it. It's an elitist goal but that's exactly why I'm using Debian; things get worked out properly instead of settling for what the majority want.

Does that mean pissing off some people? You bet. Does it make the solutions inferior to a compromise everyone is happy with? Absolutely not.

This is why we have so many forks of Debian. People get pissed and fork it because they want to have their ideal solution while still wanting the rest of Debian. Say what you want about Devuan, they are standing by their ideals and while I don't mind SystemD I still have massive respect for the Devuan maintainers.

This is what I don't want to go away. This is why having a big CoC in the way of having maintainers argue things out is a bad idea. With a CoC you can throw out irrelevant arguments to frame whomever you want. All they need to do is address the irrelevant argument and you can turn it against them. Having a CoC is much like having public telnet servers in the build system; it's more open to everyone but it's also a huge liability.

Your main logic fail is that assume that just because there where no formal written CoC before there where no CoC at all. Having a set of rules is not "having rules everywhere", there have to be a shit ton of increase in rules before we have "rules everywhere", "everywhere" is a huge fucking place.

Your second logic fail is that you assume that the Debian CoC somehow dictates how a technical solution should be implemented when all it dictates is how people communicate with each other. The CoC does not mean that you now must accept inferior patches just because some one will be upset otherwise, how the actual fuck can you fall for such a blatant and stupid myth?

Throwing out irrelevant arguments and turning them against people can be done perfectly fine without a CoC. In fact nonsensical and non-ending flame wars is one of the reasons why projects such as Debian implemented a CoC to begin with.

And you have still not put forward any arguments for how the CoC prevents forks, so far you have actually described several ways in how you think that people will be upset due to the CoC which following your own logic would actually increase the number of forks and not decrease them.

And you know what, if you are so afraid of having your "irrelevant arguments" thrown in your face on the Debian mailing-list then you perhaps shouldn't put forward "irrelevant arguments" to begin with, just saying.

[Djhg2000]

[...]
I never said that written down rules never ever can be misused, my claim is that with unwritten rules this is 100% of the cases. With written rules you decrease that risk to a high degree. Where do you think it's most likely that you will be subjected to misuse by those in power, in a country where we have written rules or in Somalia where there is total anarchy?
[...]

Your claim is both false and arbitrarily made up just to support your own case. There's an unwritten rule on this forum that we don't use profanity without good reason. Show me a single case where unnecessary profanity has led to any formal repercussions.

I bet you can easily imagine how that rule would be abused if it was written down, because it's intentionally ambiguous.

Your main logic fail is that assume that just because there where no formal written CoC before there where no CoC at all. Having a set of rules is not "having rules everywhere", there have to be a shit ton of increase in rules before we have "rules everywhere", "everywhere" is a huge fucking place.

Your second logic fail is that you assume that the Debian CoC somehow dictates how a technical solution should be implemented when all it dictates is how people communicate with each other. The CoC does not mean that you now must accept inferior patches just because some one will be upset otherwise, how the actual fuck can you fall for such a blatant and stupid myth?

Throwing out irrelevant arguments and turning them against people can be done perfectly fine without a CoC. In fact nonsensical and non-ending flame wars is one of the reasons why projects such as Debian implemented a CoC to begin with.

And you have still not put forward any arguments for how the CoC prevents forks, so far you have actually described several ways in how you think that people will be upset due to the CoC which following your own logic would actually increase the number of forks and not decrease them.

And you know what, if you are so afraid of having your "irrelevant arguments" thrown in your face on the Debian mailing-list then you perhaps shouldn't put forward "irrelevant arguments" to begin with, just saying.

Was there an implied standard for communication before the CoC? Yes there was, but it was ambiguous enough to allow for cultural differences in how you expressed yourself. Now everyone is supposed to comply with the not only narrow but sometimes downright perverted framework of American behavior. I very much don't give two shits about who you are, and especially not what you do in bed, as long as your code is good, but with a CoC it's suddenly important to avoid inadvertently offending someone based on a bad faith interpretation of what you've written.

There's even this horrifying nonsense in the de facto standard CoC:

• Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a professional setting

Some of the comments I write in the code of a personal project are inappropriate in a professional setting. You know why? Because it's not in a flipping professional setting! Of course I wouldn't write things like "the parameter order of this function call has a reserved place in hell" in professional code, but in my project I get to make the rules.

Anyway, on to the next part where you talk about the irrelevant comments...

Irrelevant comments were a hypothetical way one could bait the other party to bring in one of the no-no topics. I have no clue how you extrapolated from that into how I'm supposedly making irrelevant arguments on the Debian mailing list.

The flame wars are what kept the wrong kind of thinking away from Debian in the first place. If you wanted to mess with core functionality you had better be prepared to defend yourself. "It's not a bug, it's a feature."

I have also not said the CoC prevents forks. What I said is that having a CoC opens up a new possibility to stick around instead of forking. Some people obviously wouldn't have forked to begin with but now they have a way to keep their foot in the door.

It's also the mentality behind a CoC that everyone should be happy in the one project and all those dastardly trolls should get kicked out because they have nothing to contribute anyway. Except reality has shown us that if you disagree with a strong opinion you will eventually be called a troll. Possibly because your opinion is so far out of the realm of possibilities from narrow minded people that it seems to be impossible, and therefore the only logical conclusion is that you must be a troll. Just look at the US presidential election in 2016. Anyone who said Trump could win was considered a troll and yet, here we are (or rather, there you are since I'm not in the US). The bottom line here is you can't dismiss people and their controversial opinions based on them being a "troll" if your goal is to do your best.

[F.Ultra]

Your claim is both false and arbitrarily made up just to support your own case. There's an unwritten rule on this forum that we don't use profanity without good reason. Show me a single case where unnecessary profanity has led to any formal repercussions.

I bet you can easily imagine how that rule would be abused if it was written down, because it's intentionally ambiguous.

Actually this forum have written down rules: https://www.phoronix.com/forums/foru...59-forum-rules

Was there an implied standard for communication before the CoC? Yes there was, but it was ambiguous enough to allow for cultural differences in how you expressed yourself. Now everyone is supposed to comply with the not only narrow but sometimes downright perverted framework of American behavior. I very much don't give two shits about who you are, and especially not what you do in bed, as long as your code is good, but with a CoC it's suddenly important to avoid inadvertently offending someone based on a bad faith interpretation of what you've written.

There's even this horrifying nonsense in the de facto standard CoC:

• Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a professional setting

Some of the comments I write in the code of a personal project are inappropriate in a professional setting. You know why? Because it's not in a flipping professional setting! Of course I wouldn't write things like "the parameter order of this function call has a reserved place in hell" in professional code, but in my project I get to make the rules.

So in which way is not Debian a "professional setting"? You do realize that Debian receives corporate sponsorship which is the whole reason behind their "perverted framework of American behaviour" since those companies would drop support the second Debian would be involved with something that would cast those companies in a bad light in America (since most of them are American). That is not SJW:s, that is just old fashioned capitalism at work.

Anyway, on to the next part where you talk about the irrelevant comments...

Irrelevant comments were a hypothetical way one could bait the other party to bring in one of the no-no topics. I have no clue how you extrapolated from that into how I'm supposedly making irrelevant arguments on the Debian mailing list.

I didn't extrapolate, I quoted you verbatim where you talked about how one:s irrelevant comments would be put against you, where the context was Debian. But now you are just arguing semantics when the whole discussion is moot anyway since irrelevant comments will be put against you CoC or no CoC.

The flame wars are what kept the wrong kind of thinking away from Debian in the first place. If you wanted to mess with core functionality you had better be prepared to defend yourself. "It's not a bug, it's a feature."

And how exactly will the CoC prevent you from having to defend your patch? All the CoC does here is force everyone to focus on the actual patch instead of starting wars on meaningless semantics that have zero technical merit.

I have also not said the CoC prevents forks. What I said is that having a CoC opens up a new possibility to stick around instead of forking. Some people obviously wouldn't have forked to begin with but now they have a way to keep their foot in the door.

I don't really follow your logic here. Are you really implying that since people "must behave" due to the CoC there will be less friction and people will be able to cooperate better and that this somehow is bad since that potentially could prevent a fork?

It's also the mentality behind a CoC that everyone should be happy in the one project and all those dastardly trolls should get kicked out because they have nothing to contribute anyway. Except reality has shown us that if you disagree with a strong opinion you will eventually be called a troll. Possibly because your opinion is so far out of the realm of possibilities from narrow minded people that it seems to be impossible, and therefore the only logical conclusion is that you must be a troll. Just look at the US presidential election in 2016. Anyone who said Trump could win was considered a troll and yet, here we are (or rather, there you are since I'm not in the US). The bottom line here is you can't dismiss people and their controversial opinions based on them being a "troll" if your goal is to do your best.

But now you have done a 180 and now people are no longer "able to keep their foot in the door" since they are now labelled as trolls which was good before with an unwritten CoC but apparently now is bad when determined by a written CoC. Which however is completely non sequitur unless you can point to when people have been banned from being a Debian maintainer due to carrying controversial technical opinions.

edit: just fixed a type where I happened to write the same word twice.

[Djhg2000]

Actually this forum have written down rules: https://www.phoronix.com/forums/foru...59-forum-rules

Indeed, and do you see the rule I mentioned there?

So in which way is not Debian a "professional setting"? You do realize that Debian receives corporate sponsorship which is the whole reason behind their "perverted framework of American behaviour" since those companies would drop support the second Debian would be involved with something that would cast those companies in a bad light in America (since most of them are American). That is not SJW:s, that is just old fashioned capitalism at work.

Holy out of context quotation, Batman! If you read what I actually wrote, it was "Now everyone is supposed to comply with the not only narrow but sometimes downright perverted framework of American behavior. I very much don't give two shits about who you are, and especially not what you do in bed, as long as your code is good, but with a CoC it's suddenly important to avoid inadvertently offending someone based on a bad faith interpretation of what you've written.".

But thanks for proving my point about bad faith interpretations I guess.

Also, Debian had sponsorships before the CoC so your point is null and void.

I didn't extrapolate, I quoted you verbatim where you talked about how one:s irrelevant comments would be put against you, where the context was Debian. But now you are just arguing semantics when the whole discussion is moot anyway since irrelevant comments will be put against you CoC or no CoC.

Here's the relevant quote "With a CoC you can throw out irrelevant arguments to frame whomever you want. All they need to do is address the irrelevant argument and you can turn it against them." and here is the Merriam-Webster definition of verbatim. You did absolutely not quote me verbatim.

And how exactly will the CoC prevent you from having to defend your patch? All the CoC does here is force everyone to focus on the actual patch instead of starting wars on meaningless semantics that have zero technical merit.

You can say that all you want but at the end of the day it's a political document meant to force political correctness onto every participant in a project. We're engineers, code moneys and hobbyists trying to have fun and make the world a better place while doing it. We're not politicians and weren't scrutinized like we were politicians before the CoC happened.

I don't really follow your logic here. Are you really implying that since people "must behave" due to the CoC there will be less friction and people will be able to cooperate better and that this somehow is bad since that potentially could prevent a fork?

And I really don't see how it can be such a mystifying statement. Maybe an example can help:

1. Dave keeps rejecting patches from John because he doesn't like John
2. Dave gets banned for being an [insert politically incorrect insult here]
3. Dave contests the ban because calling someone an [insert politically incorrect insult here] is against the CoC
4. Dave has the ban removed because John is banned for saying [insert politically incorrect insult here]

Do you see how Dave played the CoC to get what he wanted? This is a simplified example of course, in a real situation the details would be more subtle, but the general workflow is the problem here. Rules are more often than not going to be abused at some point. It doesn't matter how good you think they are or how well intended they are, there are still entire professions dedicated to (mis)interpreting rules.

But now you have done a 180 and now people are no longer "able to keep their foot in the door" since they are now labelled as trolls which was good before with an unwritten CoC but apparently now is bad when determined by a written CoC. Which however is completely non sequitur unless you can point to when people have been banned from being a Debian maintainer due to carrying controversial technical opinions.

It's not a 180. You're just not following what I'm trying to tell you; these are the same set of rules applied more or less the same way from different perspectives. (Note that this is not a direct reference to the example above.)

[Particle]

Valve needs to shake off their crusty old badger persona and update Steam itself to 64-bit already. Geez.