Linux-kernel mailing list archive 1999-23,: Kernel profanity

# Kernel profanity

Lou Grinzo (lgrinzo@stny.lrun.com)
Wed, 9 Jun 1999 12:33:32 -0400

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Ingo Molnar: "Re: Profanity in the Linux Kernel?!?!?"
- Previous message: Tim Waugh: "Re: oops with 2.2.9"

I'm VERY hesitant to get into this topic, since I'm a strong advocate of
free speech,
but I'm going to do it anyway. For the record, let me say that such
language
does not offend me in any way, and I've been known to use far worse and more
creative language, usually in a software-induced fit, than anything quoted
here in
this thread so far.

I think that kind of language, whether anyone here agrees that "shit" and
"crappy" are
or aren't profanity or "bad words" or whatever, should be removed from both
visible
message and the source code comments. Why? Two reasons:

First, such language will tick off some people, and at this stage in Linux's
lifecycle,
it doesn't need to tick off anyone, particularly in a way that could be used
by certain
large companies to make Linux (and all Open Source, really), look like the
hobby of
immature hackers instead of the serious, robust, etc., tool that it is.
Imagine if a
pointed-haired mainstream journalist picked up on this and reported that
such language
is in the code and messages, and that the Linux developers didn't see it as
a problem.
Most journalists wouldn't care about this, but all it takes is one to run
with it, causing an
unneeded PR problem for OS and Linux.

Second, that kind of language doesn't do anything positive. If anything,
the diagnostics
quoted earlier by other people are weak simply because they seem to be not
as descriptive
as they could be. This means the user sees gratuitously colorful language
and not as much
useful information as could have been provided. That's precisely the kind
of nonsense that
will make me, and, I suspect, many others, very upset with software. If I
get a useless
diagnostic from Windows, which happens a lot, I get upset; if it compounded
the
error with that kind of sophomoric language, I'd be livid. Linux and any
other OS or software
is no different in this respect. If I'm using a carefully selected tool to
do my work, I
expect it to embody at least enough professionalism to avoid such blatant
missteps.

In other words, questionable language has no benefit, and it has at least
some cost
(in terms of lost opportunity to do something better) and potentially a much
more
significant cost. I think it's in the best interest of everyone who wants
to see Linux succeed,
including me, for that language to be removed.

I'm not a kernel developer, and I have no control over the content of
distributions, so what
you do is beyond my reach. (I am a journalist and technical writer in the
computer field, though,
and I have some insight into how writers' minds do and don't work. While I
won't write about this
topic for publication, no matter what happens, I can't promise that other
members of the press
will be so willing to ignore it, especially now that the issue has surfaced
on /..) If the collective
judgment is that this is one of the prices the Linux community has to pay
for benefiting from all
the free labor of the developers, then so be it. But if it were my
decision, I'd make the changes,
slightly improve the software (through better diagnostics), and avoid
possible hassles down the road.

Take care,
Lou

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

- Next message: Ingo Molnar: "Re: Profanity in the Linux Kernel?!?!?"
- Previous message: Tim Waugh: "Re: oops with 2.2.9"