I know this is a loaded topic. I really don't want to discuss the
political aspects of the "why", but just want to know the facts, i.e.
how far this has been progressed in Debian.
Is there anything planned to get "master/slave" terminology out of
network bonding/LACP in Debian (or Linux kernel or whoever decides
this terminology)?
Hello!
I know this is a loaded topic. I really don't want to discuss the
political aspects of the "why", but just want to know the facts, i.e.
how far this has been progressed in Debian.
On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 10:33:08AM +0100, Mariusz Gronczewski wrote:
On 22.02.2024 11:19, Ralph Aichinger wrote:
Hello!
I know this is a loaded topic. I really don't want to discuss the political aspects of the "why", but just want to know the facts,
i.e. how far this has been progressed in Debian.
There is no good reason *why*. It's entirely US political feel-good activism[...]
Oh, goody. A culture warrior.
On 22.02.2024 11:19, Ralph Aichinger wrote:[...]
Hello!
I know this is a loaded topic. I really don't want to discuss the
political aspects of the "why", but just want to know the facts, i.e.
how far this has been progressed in Debian.
There is no good reason *why*. It's entirely US political feel-good activism
On 22.02.2024 11:19, Ralph Aichinger wrote:
Hello!
I know this is a loaded topic. I really don't want to discuss the
political aspects of the "why", but just want to know the facts, i.e.
how far this has been progressed in Debian.
There is no good reason *why*. It's entirely US political feel-good activism that doesn't change anything but wastes people's time. Do you actually think pressing on brake pedal oppresses anybody ? Because it also has master and slave
cylinder.
All it does is wastes tens of thousands of people's time once the have to fix every script, tool and doc piece related to it, for absolutely no benefit aside from making some twitter activist happy "they did something".
It would *literally* break every single script that checks the status
of bonding config in system, as it is all just plain text.
Am 23.02.2024 schrieb <tomas@tuxteam.de>:
Oh, goody. A culture warrior.
I'm sure you have good reasons for changing the terms. Feel free to
provide some real arguments that have a benefit for the users.
The only package I am aware of that changed some terms is sendmail.
It is "fixing" an issue for today's English speakers. Should we scour
our systems looking for similar issues in other languages ? Then in,
say, 20 years time when different words will then be considered
offensive, by some, do this all again ?
On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 10:33:08AM +0100, Mariusz Gronczewski wrote:
On 22.02.2024 11:19, Ralph Aichinger wrote:
Hello!
I know this is a loaded topic. I really don't want to discuss the political aspects of the "why", but just want to know the facts,
i.e. how far this has been progressed in Debian.
There is no good reason *why*. It's entirely US political feel-good activism[...]
Oh, goody. A culture warrior.
*plonk*
On 22.02.2024 11:19, Ralph Aichinger wrote:...
Hello!
I know this is a loaded topic...
There is no good reason *why*. It's entirely US political feel-good
activism
All it does is wastes tens of thousands of people's time once the have
to fix
If there's a single person in the world who feels existing
terminology to hurt them, I consider my usage of such terms.
If it makes one person feel better, I think I did something good.
If it makes others feel worse, I have to balance arguments. Arguments
such as "it was always thus" or "it's too much effort" are not strong
ones.
As it happens, I prefer being called "woke" above being rude.
Oh, and tech and culture can not be separated, but that's probably
also a loaded topic.
On 23.02.24 at 10:33, Mariusz Gronczewski wrote:
On 22.02.2024 11:19, Ralph Aichinger wrote:...
Hello!
I know this is a loaded topic...
There is no good reason *why*. It's entirely US political feel-good activism
Statement one above proven.
...
All it does is wastes tens of thousands of people's time once the
have to fix
If there's a single person in the world who feels existing
terminology to hurt them, I consider my usage of such terms.
If it makes one person feel better, I think I did something good.
If it makes others feel worse, I have to balance arguments. Arguments
such as "it was always thus" or "it's too much effort" are not strong
ones.
As it happens, I prefer being called "woke" above being rude.
It would *literally* break every single script that checks the status
of bonding config in system, as it is all just plain text.
Dnia 2024-02-23, o godz. 11:25:25
Roger Price <roger@rogerprice.org> napisał(a):
On Fri, 23 Feb 2024, Marco Moock wrote:
The only package I am aware of that changed some terms is sendmail.
With the publication of RFC 9271 "UPS Management Protocol", the nut packages (Network UPS Tools) did a vocabulary cleanup
Did you looked up what actually changed and thought about implications
vs changing kernel interfaces or did you just google for random tidbit
of which project did waste time on that ?
I know this is a loaded topic. I really don't want to discuss the
political aspects of the "why",
Hi,
On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 11:19:16AM +0100, Ralph Aichinger wrote:
I know this is a loaded topic. I really don't want to discuss the
political aspects of the "why",
No surprise that there are a lot of people in this thread with very
strong feelings that they simply must tell us about, even though you
asked them not to, and very little to say on the actual technical
facts they claim to care about. 😀
On Fri, 23 Feb 2024, Andy Smith wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 11:19:16AM +0100, Ralph Aichinger wrote:
I know this is a loaded topic. I really don't want to discuss the
political aspects of the "why",
No surprise that there are a lot of people in this thread with very
strong feelings that they simply must tell us about, even though you
asked them not to, and very little to say on the actual technical
facts they claim to care about. 😀
too many people have nothing constuctive to do
so they spend there days stirring the pile
idle hands and all that
I don't want to bikeshed, though. Slavery ended in the US about 150
years ago. I don't know any slaves, and I don't own any slaves, so I
don't really have a dog in the fight.
Am 23.02.2024 schrieb Alain D D Williams <addw@phcomp.co.uk>:
It is "fixing" an issue for today's English speakers. Should we scour
our systems looking for similar issues in other languages ?
say, 20 years time when different words will then be considered
offensive, by some, do this all again ?
In Germany, some organizations do that as well - and most people are
annoyed by that because it has no benefit.
The most important thing is that the upstream projects would need to
change that - including all the translators.
This is always a PITA - for no realistic benefit.
1. The terminology is bad, and I'm willing to work on fixing it.
2. The terminology is bad, but I can't work on it myself.
3. The terminology does not bother me, but I don't care if someone
else wants to fix it.
4. The terminology is good and we should not fix it.
Jeffrey Walton wrote:
Let's bring it back around to actual action.
The possible positions:
1. The terminology is bad, and I'm willing to work on fixing it.
2. The terminology is bad, but I can't work on it myself.
3. The terminology does not bother me, but I don't care if someone else wants to fix it.
4. The terminology is good and we should not fix it.
People taking positions one through three are people that I can
work with.
-dsr-
Jeffrey Walton wrote:
I don't want to bikeshed, though. Slavery ended in the US about 150
years ago. I don't know any slaves, and I don't own any slaves, so I
don't really have a dog in the fight.
Point of fact: slavery is legal in the USA, as a legal punishment.
Other point of fact: the effects of slavery in the USA continue
to be felt in the present.
At this point we have diverged completely from Debian topics.
Let's bring it back around to actual action.
The possible positions:
1. The terminology is bad, and I'm willing to work on fixing it.
2. The terminology is bad, but I can't work on it myself.
3. The terminology does not bother me, but I don't care if someone else wants to fix it.
4. The terminology is good and we should not fix it.
Debian is mostly a collection of many packages that are packed in the repo.Such changes are normally done upstream.
I don't think that spending time on that is a valuable thing, there
are more important tasks like testing or adding functionality.
Dnia 2024-02-23, o godz. 14:50:12
fxkl47BF@protonmail.com napisał(a):
too many people have nothing constuctive to do
so they spend there days stirring the pile
idle hands and all that
Yeah like asking other people to do changes because they want to be
activists on internet but can't bother to put effort to do anything
that actually helps anyone.
"Do what I say, discussion is not allowed because I don't want to
make a sensible arguments!"
"Damn those people using reason and questioning what I want, just do
what I say!"
One more time: a successor to the Ethernet bonding driver already
exists and has for more than 10 years.
I just think this mailing
list probably is not the right place to argue this question.
in my /etc/interfaces there is now:
auto bond0
iface bond0 inet static
address 10.0.16.2/24
bond-slaves en0 en1
bond-mode 4
bond-miimon 100
bond-downdelay 200
bond-updelay 200
bond-lacp-rate 1
bond-xmit-hash-policy layer3+4
which seems to work (I could not test throughput yet, because
I am waiting for cables).
If I do this, does "ifupdown" use "ifenslave" or does it
use "ip link set" as described here:
Also, above still(?) contains "bond-slaves en0 en1" so if this is
a new implementation, is there still some terminology change to be
expected? Or can I replace bond-slaves with something else in the
current Debian bookworm?
I wrote:
You seem by now to have ignored multiple messages where it was made
clear that the work was already done.
Assuming we care about the most rapid healing possible for those who
are actually triggered by certain words in one or another language,
there is a valid position to consider that is to increase, not
decrease, exposure to and therefore the broader usage of, triggering
words.
If we care about healing wounds, we ought not remove the catalysts to
that healing.
Just check what different meanings GIMP has. Maybe some more
people now feel uncomfortable with using it.
https://www.dict.cc/?s=gimp
But what about the black market? Or does in fact "block
market" work just fine?
The term "black market" is from World War II - i.e. 1939-45.
It has nothing to do with slaves. It means transactions in
the dark, not visible, not official.
jeremy ardley wrote:
But what about the black market? Or does in fact "block market"
work just fine?
The term "black market" is from World War II - i.e. 1939-45. It has
nothing to do with slaves. It means transactions in the dark, not
visible, not official.
I think the reason is black people shouldn't be associated with
everything negative that is black in language.
It was a BLM thing, not sure if it matters the etymology of such
words.
It was a BLM thing, not sure if it matters the etymology of such
words.
The etymology certainly *should* matter, insofar as that is the origin
of the *meaning* of the word(s).
On Sat, Feb 24, 2024 at 09:03:45AM -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
It was a BLM thing, not sure if it matters the etymology of such
words.
The etymology certainly *should* matter, insofar as that is the origin
of the *meaning* of the word(s).
+1
However that is not the way that the world works, or prolly more accurately how
some people think. They see a word/phrase that they have decided that they "own" [...]
I sometimes think that something similar to Postel's Law but applied to human interactions would be useful. However that is wishful thinking
jeremy ardley wrote:
But what about the black market? Or does in fact "block
market" work just fine?
The term "black market" is from World War II - i.e. 1939-45.
It has nothing to do with slaves. It means transactions in
the dark, not visible, not official.
I think the reason is black people shouldn't be associated
with everything negative that is black in language.
On 2/24/24, Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> wrote:
On Sat, Feb 24, 2024 at 01:35:14PM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
I wrote:
You seem by now to have ignored multiple messages where it was made
clear that the work was already done.
Assuming we care about the most rapid healing possible for those who
are actually triggered by certain words in one or another language,
there is a valid position to consider that is to increase, not
decrease, exposure to and therefore the broader usage of, triggering
words.
If we care about healing wounds, we ought not remove the catalysts to
that healing.
I did wonder how long it would take for someone to go from, "it's
terrible that you activists are MAKING someone do this POINTLESS non-technical work!" to "no one should use this thing someone did in
their own free time because it's bad, actually, for non-technical
reasons!"
Except "no one should use this thing someone did in their own free
time because it's bad, actually, for non-technical reasons!" is not
what I said.
I think the reason is black people shouldn't be associated
with everything negative that is black in language.
On 2/23/24, Arno Lehmann <al@its-lehmann.de> wrote:
On 23.02.24 at 10:33, Mariusz Gronczewski wrote:
On 22.02.2024 11:19, Ralph Aichinger wrote:...
Hello!
I know this is a loaded topic...
There is no good reason *why*. It's entirely US political feel-good
activism
Statement one above proven.
Missing the wood for the trees.
Acknowledging that part of your interlocutor's statement which does
have substance, is a more useful foundation for actual communication.
Your response to Ralph might be witty, but it is without empathy.
All it does is wastes tens of thousands of people's time once the have
to fix
If there's a single person in the world who feels existing terminology
to hurt them, I consider my usage of such terms.
You are free to do all such consideration you feel appropriate. You
have failed to name the objection, which afaict is the asking of "tens
of thousands" of people in our community to spend their precious Soul attention on the real psychological and emotional needs of a handful
of damaged individuals in genuine need of healing.
If it makes one person feel better, I think I did something good.
Your good intentions are applauded.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions, at least when you put
your imposition on others to "you must act with the good intentions
which I do".
If it makes others feel worse, I have to balance arguments. Arguments
such as "it was always thus" or "it's too much effort" are not strong ones.
If someone is genuinely in need of healing, then the Debian mailing
lists is not an appropriate place for professional help.
If someone is not in need of professional help and genuine healing,
the demand that the community put the attention of thousands (or in
fact 10s of thousands or more) on the delicate emotions of a tiny
number of vocal individuals, is an abhorrent demand, virtually be
definition.
As it happens, I prefer being called "woke" above being rude.
It is good that you have personally found a way to feel good about
your activism. You are applauded, certainly by those who are aware of
the benefit you may have brought to their delicate and fragile
emotions.
And I say that with no sarcasm at all. It is good that people in this
world care about one another. I have no objection that whatsoever, and
in fact when one is lifted a little, I hold that this lifting has a
subtle benefit for us all.
Oh, and tech and culture can not be separated, but that's probably also
a loaded topic.
Every loaded topic, can be unloaded. Unloading a loaded topic simply
requires sufficient linguistic capacity. Keep at your efforts and you
should find success in this regard. I consider such pursuit a useful endeavor.
May I interject a different perspective?
what brings greater freedom, asking that words be changed by many, that some see, no matter how justified from their view as harmful? Or teaching those people how to free themselves from being controlled by those words?
Yes, your goals may be honorable to be sure, but in the end do not the words still win if the control remains?
The "problem" is asking the majority (10s of thousands of people) to
make efforts to help 1 or 2 heal in their journey's of pain and
healing.
On 2/25/24, tomas@tuxteam.de <tomas@tuxteam.de> wrote:
On Sun, Feb 25, 2024 at 09:14:44AM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
[...]
The "problem" is asking the majority (10s of thousands of people) to
make efforts to help 1 or 2 heal in their journey's of pain and
healing.
To make sure the "majority" stays majority for all so ever: white,
male, Western Europe or US, English speaking?
Ha! Had to pull the race card now huh? Figured that's where the sjw
wokesters would go. When all else fails, cry "racism".
[...]
I think I'm out of it. *Plonk*
--
t
Am Sat, 24 Feb 2024 14:42:39 +0100
schrieb Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org>:
I think the reason is black people shouldn't be associated
with everything negative that is black in language.
I can't understand why people draw that association.
Black as a color is different from the skin and different from illegal activities on black markets.
On Sat, Feb 24, 2024 at 06:05:26PM -0500, Karen Lewellen wrote:
May I interject a different perspective?
what brings greater freedom, asking that words be changed by many,
that some see, no matter how justified from their view as harmful?
Or teaching those people how to free themselves from being
controlled by those words?
Not using the words doesn't remove the injustice. I'm not that naïve.
It's just a question of politeness.
As an example: I left the Christian religion long time ago. If I
visit a church (to admire its architecture, for example), I behave
with a modicum of respect and restrain myself of farting aloud. If I
visit a mosque (I'm not a Muslim) I take off my shoes.
However that is not the way that the world works, or prolly
more accurately how some people think. They see
a word/phrase that they have decided that they "own" or
somehow relates to them [...]
It is "fixing" an issue for today's English speakers.
Should we scour our systems looking for similar issues in
other languages? Then in, say, 20 years time when different
words will then be considered offensive, by some, do this
all again?
Yes.
Mike Castle wrote:
It is "fixing" an issue for today's English speakers.
Should we scour our systems looking for similar issues in
other languages? Then in, say, 20 years time when different
words will then be considered offensive, by some, do this
all again?
Yes.
Remember, there are A LOT of words and expressions we don't
use anymore, and that's good, as they are offensive and
disrespectful. But once they were perfectly normal. Still, one
by one, they have disappeared from active use.
On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 1:49 AM Alain D D Williams <addw@phcomp.co.uk> wrote:
We seem to be told that this must be done by those who will not be doing the
work.
Was that explicitly stated anywhere? Or is the lack of any type of
explicit "I'm willing to help drive this" statements leading to that conclusion?
Was that explicitly stated anywhere? Or is the lack of any
type of explicit "I'm willing to help drive this" statements
leading to that conclusion?
That is the big difference. Not use words *currently* deemed
offensive in *new* publications (books, newspaper articles,
...) - this is not hard to do.
What we are faced with is something very different: a call
to locate and modify use in programs that might have been
written a long time ago. The effort needed to do this is
large and will doubtless cause failures in systems that have
been working well for years.
It is not just a matter of modifying Debian (+ RedHat + ...)
sources but the sources on private systems.
We seem to be told that this must be done by those who will
not be doing the work.
It's entirely US political feel-good activism that
doesn't change anything but wastes people's time. Do
you actually think pressing on brake pedal oppresses
anybody? Because it also has master and slave cylinders.
All it does is wastes tens of thousands of people's time
once they have to fix every script, tool and doc piece
related to it, for absolutely no benefit aside from making
some Twitter activist happy "they did something". It would
*literally* break every single script that [...]
It is "fixing" an issue for today's English speakers. Should
we scour our systems looking for similar issues in other
languages? Then in, say, 20 years time when different words
will then be considered offensive, by some, do this all again?
Remember, there are A LOT of words and expressions
we don't use anymore, and that's good, as
they are offensive and disrespectful. [...]
[...]
Maybe one should just focus on a few words and expressions that
are clearly offensive, and remove them from schools, universities,
public service TV, all official state-related communication, etc.
With no intention of ever creating a 100% offensive-free language,
removing the worst offenders from the scene often is enough.
With no intention of ever creating a 100% offensive-free
language, removing the worst offenders from the scene often
is enough.
Words I find offensive include "authority" and "manager", so
checking `apropos authori manager` I see we have a lot of
important work to do.
Seriously, you humans have only another five billion Earth
years until your sun engulfs your home planet, and you're
spending time on *THIS*?!
I think the discussion might usefully stop at this point before it degenerates to more heat than light (as is the way of most discussions eventually - call it an application of mailing list entropy :) )
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 307 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 100:28:14 |
| Calls: | 6,850 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,354 |
| Messages: | 5,415,286 |