Messages in this thread | | | From | "Lou Grinzo" <> | Subject | Kernel profanity | Date | Wed, 9 Jun 1999 12:33:32 -0400 |
| |
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/
| |