mpm_worker was notoriously bad back then and would frequently deadlock the entire Apache process. So the default was to either use prefork or some sort of monitoring to restart stuck processes
>I’d want to know exactly what they worked on, and have them explain their ethical rationale for continuing.
Now I’m imagining I meet someone who is on the other side of the interview table having these thoughts. Are my capabilities ignored because they are already prejudiced to a decision I made years prior? What if my answer, trying to improve issues from within, is not good enough?
I guess this is just a risk that you have to accept when you decide to work somewhere like Meta. I wouldn't accept a job at Philip Morris for the same reason.
It's a risk you have to accept when you work anywhere, I suppose. There are plenty of people across the industry who will judge you based on stereotypes of where you've worked in the past and what they think that implies about you.
Personally, I think that's a bad hiring practice, deterministically leading to worse employees and a more toxic culture. But I know that people who engage in it generally have some argument for why they can't or shouldn't impartially evaluate every interview.
As always, the home model is what has greater influence than any tv show. If parents are also behaving as in the TV shows then the shows simply serve as confirmation bias to what the children observe.
I noticed that when I adopted a loving, quieter tone, and truly focused on do as i do vs do as i say attitudes, my children began to reject the "norms" shown on the tv shows. Today my children remark about how their friends act at their homes and towards their parents, and we have discussions about it.
That said, I definitely had the problem you describe, but it was resolved by focusing on consequences of actions and being ready to follow through on punishments (much like you did). Combined with the do as i do attitude, those punishments were ultimately punishments for me as well. You are being a terorrizing little bad ass? ok no TV. But then this means I can't watch TV because then they might watch TV while in the same room as me. Mutual pain.
I used to make so much fun of RMS in the late 90s. Then I met him and my entire view on that man changed. He absolutely is doing the world a favor and it would benefit everyone to think long and hard what a world would be like without GNU today
He's also an interesting study in having principles - a purist approach is rare, honestly confusing to most people and actually rather effective in a Cassandra-style way if watched closely. Quite effective in terms of outcomes too, it's really deceptive how much of an impact he managed to have because the part of the brain that judges success and failure seems to key off charisma and social proof rather than doing a technically outcomes-vs-intent comparison.
A few years ago there were some "personalities" that very much agitated against Stallman. Without generalizing too much it is these people you probably should keep a very, very large distance to. Toxic is likely an understatement.
Oh, please. This sort of anonymous, hopelessly vague character assassination does not belong on HN.
You have of course given no idea of which people you're objecting to. But the people I know who were upset at Stallman a few years ago had clear, specific concerns, and some of them were directly harmed by Stallman.
If you would like to rebut their complaints, feel free to give it a go. Or you could also claim that the harm caused was justified or excusable given the positive things he's done. But you have to actually make the case, rather than just smearing them like this.
I do think this belongs on HN as a topic. This isn't a character assassination since I didn't name anyone. Quite the contrary, the character assassination was directed against Stallman and it was based on toxic slender and rumors and it even lead to consequences. If someone does feel addressed by my comment, I welcome that of course and perhaps it will lead to some self-reflection because I want to underline that it is strong criticism.
The problem comes when his principals turn out to have blind spots.
I feel like the refusal to close the network hole in the GPLv3 is a significant blind spot of his, and is a decision that has aged incredibly poorly in the age of cloud services.
> I admired this dude but those words are, kinda, punchable offense.
I think that's pretty spot on. Saying stuff like that means that there shouldn't be celebration of the person or reverence towards them.
You can support the FSF views on free software and any good those do in the world, but it's not possible to ignore all of the other stuff a person has said.
One can guess whether he's not neurotypical to such a degree that he doesn't take a humane enough perspective (arguing about topics that perhaps shouldn't be argued about), but that doesn't really change anything.
When you want to talk about free software, probably talk about FSF not RMS.
"<some stupid shit you later changed your mind about>"
-- you, probably
Also, if you're not sceptical about it, you should be able to explain to someone like Stallman (as someone apparently later did) why it's still bad for children. If you can't then you're just as "stupid", the only difference is you happen to conform to the current accepted belief on this particular matter.
Opinions like this give rise to fascism.
You can not talk about how we want to protect children and where the boundaries are because some lunatics immediately accuse anybody of harming THE CHILDREN.
If someone is romantically into kids this is not socially accepted in most cultures, but someone merely being attracted without following up with actions does not harm any kids.
It means he thinks kids can "want it" and if a kid "wants it" it's ok. It's unfortunately a common view among some, most apparent with Sartre and that "philosopher" crew. It's disgusting of course.
Having terrible opinions in one area doesn’t discount what you do in another.
I’d say Stallman has overall had a positive impact on the technology landscape even though he clearly has messed up views when it comes to “sexual ethics”
RMS was trying to defend Marvin Minsky, but because RMS is on the spectrum he did it in a way that didn't do anything for his long-term friend but made things horrible for himself.
Marvin Minsky and Noam Chomsky were both involved with Epstein.
It didn't ruin RMS at all. He was momentarily cancelled then welcomed back to the FSF. He was blogging passionately about his pro-pedophilia views for years. His supporters literally couldn't have cared less, and rather swore a blood oath of vengeance against the people who called him out.
I'm actually struggling to think of anyone who has suffered negative consequences over Epstein, besides Epstein himself. Even Ghislane is being treated like royalty in prison. Trump seems untouchable. Prince Andrew lost a purely decorative title and was banished to a slightly smaller mansion.
He's blogged for years, writing a number of short 1 or 2 sentence notes daily, on a very wide range of topics, taking positions on each of them from a lefty and analytical point of view, generally covering various political/environmental/economic/legal topics.
And, for what it's worth, he recanted the statement he made that was posted above.
>taking positions on each of them from a lefty and analytical point of view, generally covering various political/environmental/economic/legal topics.
He didn't take a lofty and analytical view on sex with children. Read his other posts, he was upset that there were societal norms and laws against it. He cared about this.
>And, for what it's worth, he recanted the statement he made that was posted above.
As far as I'm aware only once, almost as an afterthought, in a brief statement when the Minsky stuff was blowing up, likely under duress from someone at MIT desperate for him to put out the fire his at best awkward comments on Minsky set alight. He's probably put more effort into ordering a meal than he did recanting his views on pedophilia. Which again he held for years, in public view, without consequence.
So he didn't even need to go that far because none of it even touched him.
Of course I'm not arguing in favor of pedophilia JFC.
Yes I'm pointing out that RMS was, judging from his own words, an advocate. He advocated for adults to have sexual relationships with children. It's gross. It's gross that he's still the face of free software.
I don't think you even need to go as far as his interpersonal skills. IMHO The fact that the GPLv3 (not the AGPLv3) didn't close the network hole should've been proof enough.
If you care about user freedom, the fact that the GPL isn't viral across the network is such an obvious gaping hole at its center, one that was well known by the late 2000's. Yet through myopia or appeasement, he decided to leave it to the AGPL to solve, and the GPLv3 ended up as a license that still ticked off enough people for them to not upgrade, yet with a gigantic backdoor built-in that allows trivial circumvention of user freedoms.
There was a comment on another GitHub thread that I replied to. I got a response saying it’s absurd how unreliable Gh is when people depend on it for CI/CD. And I think this is the problem. At GitHub the developers think it’s only a problem because their ci/cd is failing. Oh no, we broke GitHub actions, the actions runners team is going to be mad at us! Instead of, oh no, we broke GitHub actions, half the world is down!
That larger view held only by a small sliver of employees is likely why reliability is not a concern. That leads to the every team for themselves mentality. “It’s not our problem, and we won’t make it our problem so we don’t get dinged at review time” (ok that is Microsoft attitude leaking)
Then there’s their entrenched status. Real talk, no one is leaving GitHub. So customers will suck it up and live with it while angry employees grumble on an online forum. I saw this same attitude in major companies like Verio and Verisign in the early 2000s. “Yeah we’re down but who else are you going to go to? Have a 20% discount since you complained. We will only be 1% less profitable this quarter due to it” The kang and kodos argument personified.
These views are my own and not related to my employer or anyone associated with me.
We used to obsessively care about 500s. Like I would make a change that caused a 0.1% spike in 500s and I would silently say I'm sorry to the folks who got the unicorn page.
I'm not sure the new school cares nearly as much. But then again this is how companies change as they mature. I saw this with StubHub as well.. The people who care the most are the initial employees, employee #7291 usually dgaf
I fall into the new school gen z category, and I think you're right. We don't care. We don't care about the problems started before us, and we owe nothing to no one (but our employers, must increase value for shareholders of course).
I simply want to survive. I'll kiss ass where I have to, but not to people I don't work on behalf of.
Can't say that's entirely true for me ('02). If my [ employer, supervisor, ... ] provides me with logical, traceable tasks with their context properly laid out, I can totally put a ton of effort into providing meticulous, well thought out solutions, that are as good as it gets under the provided constraints. It's the non-sensical (be it actually non-sensical or just not understood enough because of unprovided context) tasks that make me not care.
I'll throw in my $0.02, as a fellow zoomer. I care about the things that are mine (as in, my code, my decisions, etc. etc.). But if management fucks up and tells me to fix it, there is no amount of money that will make me care. Especially if I advised management _not_ to do that in the first place.
take a look at AtheOS it's successor SyllableOS. created by a single developer, another single developer took it over (syllable) and it shortly became an open source project before it went defunct again. But it made impressive gains in the 3 years of initial development.
i miss those days of everyone and their mom creating an OS for giggles
Don't forget SkyOS. And there's plenty more, with SerenityOS being one of the latest notable examples. Those days never ended. Also ekhem ekhem TempleOS, as single developer as you can get.
SkyOS ? I actually paid to be on the Beta program and then suddenly out of the blue the developer pulled the plug on the project completely. Not sure what happened but there were rumours that the code may have "borrowed" from other operating systems but I am not sure.
I don't think they will like Plan9 if file based everything is a turn off.
Did you know the Go language supports Plan9? You can create a binary from any system using GOOS=plan9 with amd64 and i386 supported. You might need to disable CGO and use libraries that don't have operating system specifics though. You can even bootstrap Go from it provided you have the SDK.
