Microsoft Helping Out In Making The Linux Kernel Language More Inclusive

[ssokolow]

So this particular change does not affect you at all. The actual kernel maintainers accepted the change. Stands to reason that they are ok with it. Could even be that they welcomed it. Who are you to pretend to speak for them and disagree?

I'm speaking about the trend. Things like patches to replace "blacklist" and "whitelist" with "denylist" and "allowlist", Git "master" branches with Git "main" branches, etc. etc. etc.

[anda_skoa]

It depends. Did the hardware specification documentation change or was it always like this?

Why would that matter?

It is a change that reduces the delta, aligning the names used in the code with their origin document.

[ssokolow]

Why would that matter?

It is a change that reduces the delta, aligning the names used in the code with their origin document.

Because, if it was always out of sync and this fixes that, then the kernel was in the wrong. If it used to be in sync and then ideologues pressured the company to change the source document, then they're in the wrong for making pointless changes to the source document and busywork for everyone who wants to keep the documentation in sync.

[deusexmachina]

Their tactics are certainly effective; ignoring, gaslighting and trying to suck everyone into their useless discourse - just like the soviet or CIA handbooks on how to subvert organizations, cause them despair, waste their time, etc... They refuse to answer questions directly yet they demand full attention and care for their endless demands, which have no defined limit. What if we were offended by their names or ideology and forced them to communicate only in paricular ways with us or else be considered vile/evil/hateful/bigoted/etc? Well, like boiling frogs, that is what they've done - slowly officiating the demands, victim classes, the perpetrators - and it doesn't even seem like they know they're doing it. People will believe in something as complex and out of their own experience as Stuxnet, but when they see an epidemic of behaviors that could qualify as possessed - they don't say a thing for fear of being called religious, or even worse.

[anda_skoa]

Because, if it was always out of sync and this fixes that, then the kernel was in the wrong.

But that is also true if the documents changed, regardless of why.

If anyone has issues with perceived or actual reasons for that change they would need to address it there, not necessary adaption in the kernel's code.

Unfortunately people have done the latter, apparently for ideological reasons like having contributed by Microsoft or believing in some "woke" conspiracy.

[deusexmachina]

...believing in some "woke" conspiracy.

To believe that people conspire is not officially incorrect as a universal? And we must mock anyone who doesn't immediately submit to this new (anti) logical form? This is really closer to subtle coercion than it is to dialetic.

[ssokolow]

But that is also true if the documents changed, regardless of why.

It's the same difference as the difference between killing someone yourself vs. hiring a hitman. Driving someone else to be patient zero for pointless busywork doesn't absolve you.

The kernel is right to stay in sync with upstream documentation, no matter what that means. People who introduce pointless churn in terminology are wrong, no matter where the initial point of introduction is.

[anda_skoa]

The kernel is right to stay in sync with upstream documentation, no matter what that means.

Exactly!

Hence the puzzlement of many on why that work is being attacked.

People who introduce pointless churn in terminology are wrong, no matter where the initial point of introduction is.

That may be the case, however ever the question is why are the people who fix it attacked, not those who introduce it?

They attack the kernel patch because someone Microsoft submitted it, hiding their reason behind fake outrage over the names being used.
From now on the only way for letting the kernel stay in sync with upstream documentation is for Linus himself to submit the change.

[ssokolow]

That may be the case, however ever the question is why are the people who fix it attacked, not those who introduce it?

They attack the kernel patch because someone Microsoft submitted it, hiding their reason behind fake outrage over the names being used.
From now on the only way for letting the kernel stay in sync with upstream documentation is for Linus himself to submit the change.

Because humans. Lazy, distracted, mistaken, or stupid, humans are humans.

[TiCPU]

Why would that matter?

It is a change that reduces the delta, aligning the names used in the code with their origin document.

This is my exact concern. A lot of work has gone thru this, the documentation mentions it started before 2021; it did add extra work for many people for years.

v.7 20211001 User manual; seventh release
Modifications:
• Updated Table 5
• Updated the terms "master/slave" to "controller/target" throughout to align with MIPI I3C
specification and NXP's Inclusive Language Project
• Added Section 9

And when this code is merged, it still isn't done until all the literature and hardware has adopted the new nomenclature. And then you have to support the legacy nomenclature. This is madness, it isn't to align the documentation to the source, this was made-up from the very first line of documentation that's been replaced.

This is just like renaming and organization and having to rename all references in source code and documents that no administrator will ever read. A lot of overhead.

It's not being inclusive or not that's getting to me, it is all the overhead that people making those "little changes" don't seem to understand or take into account.