Uncucked source code hosting

In principle, Linux cucked long ago, when their devs started kowtowing to vendors and signing NDAs for muh hardware support. They accepted major contributions from corporate actors who didn't really care whether Linux remained free, and then they were beholden to the interests of those contributors. The transsexual's CoC is just the logical outcome of the foregoing.

Maybe you should get a VPS and self-host your scm. Then the only CoC you'll have to accept will be your own.

I'm on repo.or.cz, but I'll switch to cgit or stagit on a little server when I'll get my own home.

This. We need a host that takes clear stances.

That's how git traditionally works. You do it over mailing lists. People send in patches, they either get merged or not.
The source code can be modified without asking, but you would need to manually seek the changed version out.

If there are no good alternatives I will do just that.

Do you want uncucked hosts or differently cucked hosts?
Thread titles says one thing, rest of the OP says another.
In any case, self hosting is an option.

See how well that worked with Linus, all it takes is ONE change and it's over.
Also, consider which kind of person has the interest and dedication to give to such a project: 99% they are control freaks, desperately lonely, seriously autistic, or worse.

Meritocracy doesn't work if you can't see past contributions made by user_971346, and if you can you have pseudonimity not anonymity (with its share of issues).
Without meritocracy you go nowhere because you cannot put any shred of trust in any contribution and cannot easily filter out shit contributions.

They accepted those because the alternative was letting Linux fade into irrelevance a bit faster.
Jewish CoCs are not a logical outcome of non-free software, they are the logical outcome of a political takeover.

There's still a main branch and modifications have to be approved by someone.

If it's fully unconstrained, then the "owner" of the project has no control over whether people follow the branch that you want to go with or another, and it's all by design rather than some forking mechanism.

Irrelevance to whom? Alphabet agencies? Amazon.com? Linux was originally by and for hobbyists -- its meteoric success was great (I guess), but where was the imperative for it to become more than that?

Yes.

I want one that keeps the SJW menace at bay. We've tried neutrality, and it failed. We need outright hostility towards them.

What? Read them through and reject them. Do you automatically merge patches just because you recognize the username?

Yes, but I can just make up a new 'main' branch. The modifications only have to be approved if I want to put them in the same main branch. I can clone the Linux repo and 'approve' whatever changes I want, but it won't show up on linux.org's repo.
The same would go here. The "owner" controls the tripcode. If he wants to merge something, he merges it and then he updates the hash of master.

...

Ah, we're talking about different things.

I was thinking of something where nobody owns or controls anything and there is no such concept as a "main branch". Any rando could merge the submitted changes he wants into a new node, and then people can continue modifying that node if they want. Merging changes and forking would effectively be the same thing.

Though on hindsight you'd have to constantly micromanage which branch you're on and maybe use some special tool to visualize it, which wouldn't be fun.

You could use a tripcode if you wanted to.
What about "I enjoy programming and creating things"? Is that not a perfectly good answer?
I've created several projects just for fun that I've never published anywhere. Do you post on Zig Forums for 'the reward of recognition' too?

Tripfags get the rope.
That's the intrinsic incentive of programming, and in a world where everyone had unlimited time to do whatever they want, it would be more than good enough. But time is precious, so it's practically necessary to have extrinsic incentives -- incentives that go beyond the simple satisfaction found in the act of creating. Remove those incentives without replacing them with something else, and naturally the rate of production of free software will go down. I suppose an argument could be made in favor of that.
Certainly though, below a certain threshold of leisure time, I wouldn't post on 8ch at all. Everyone has priorities.

The hardware and sowtware companies that could help Linux.
Being irrelevant among the general public gives you no power in negotiations.
Pretending that all evils are the same evil is incredibly stupid, kys.

Hostility was already tried, and it already failed.
See how hard Alex Jones was shut down, and he has the userbase and the resources to fight back at least a bit.
Knowing who is a good contributor means I can prioritize their PRs, getting shit done faster.
Knowing who is a terrible contributor means I can block/ignore their PRs so I don't have to read through idiotic "rewrite it in Go" or "replace words I don't like" drivel and can instead get shit done.

Tripcodes means you're no longer anonymous but pseudonymous, and I already mentioned that.

Meaning that we are all out of options.
IT'S FUCKING OVER

You would need something like a capcode anyway for administration. If people don't feel like contributing, that's their problem.

But running an facebook page isn't the goal here.
The Daily Stormer is up and running just fine, and hidden services are even harder to take down.

Idiotic drivel can be ignored after skimming it. In addition, those kinds of people would likely be driven out if the environment caused them to receive large amounts of vitriol each time they posted. A self-moderating system, if you will. That's even more efficient than filtering them out, because they won't come in the first place.

Yeah, they really (((helped))).
Large corporations = the general public? Fine. If that's the case, did their contributions and extra "relevance" add leverage to the Linux project or to themselves? Whose interests took precedence?
You have missed my point, which was not about the ethics of non-free software at all. The Linux project's capitulation to hardware vendors was a takeover. The same large corporate interests that have driven the direction of Linux kernel development for years are also recently responsible for imposing SJW ideology in other areas. It would be unreasonable to deny that they had a hand in it here too.

Hi, defeatist Jew. We'll get to you in time.

Hard to do for an individual, so it's time to start a gang, I guess.

Affordable hardware printing when?

It's actually really not. You could run a webserver fifteen years ago on your desktop PC easily. Many people did. Many people still do. A Minecraft server gobbles up far more RAM/CPU than a git project.

But the whole point of incentive is to cause people to feel like contributing.
That said, I don't necessarily disagree with you. I think that everyone but the most committed autistic contributors would choose not to participate in a project organized in this way. That actually might be a good thing. Small communities with an accordingly low tolerance for bullshit can accomplish a lot.

It's not hard to do at all. You can get an old Power Mac cheap and run it from your closet.
If you need scale, then people will volunteer their own hardware to mirror the project, or else there's always p2p.

No, it means neutrality/hostility isn't the important factor here.

If you hide or even simply move to the dark web, you give them full reign over public discourse and they win.
That takes time, even more so if the drivel to quality PR ratio is high.
Implying chans are devoid of bait.
Implying no attention whores.
Implying no individuals with the fanatical belief that they can do no wrong.
More importantly, implying the community spending time on vitriolic criticism of irrelevant trash is good for the project: it takes away attention and criticism from existing issues and serious PRs, creates complacency, and leads to weakman-related cancer.
Dare I say, the vitriolic reaction could be much worse for the project than the idiotic drivel it reacts to, and that's even if it's not misdirected.
The issue of misdirected vitriol deserves a full post on its own, tldr it always ends in lowest common denominator anarchy and nothing gets done.

>Yeah, they really (((helped))).
They had no reason to help, so they didn't: there was no money to be made, and no public trust to gain or lose.
No, my point is that influence over the general public translates to influence over large corps, because they cannot afford to lose a bunch of clients and would very much like to acquire some more.
Mutually beneficial deal, so both.
Those of the corporations, because Linux had no power to negotiate for more.
But they aren't.
The infamous CoC has been written by a literally who with zero money, zero carreer, and no future.
It's like that GG literally who that was invited to the UN, acted like she was hot shit, but now is desperate for attention and patreonbux.
The people that are winning politically are not big company material, and the big companies wasting their money by following these people eventually realize they were played and kick them out (see Disney and the SW director).
With very few exceptions, big companies value money over everything else, and would gladly add "1488 gas the kikes" to their CoC if they thought that would net more sales: see how quickly Bethesda changed tone after Wolfenstein 2 sold terrible.

Sounds like you contradicted yourself there, kiddo.

Thank you, you have made my point for me.
Linux was never in a position of power over large corporations, and no amount of dealing with them could have given them leverage over them. The corporations set the terms from the very beginning.
Linux people never said NO. They rolled over and took it like the bitches they were.

And this literally who managed to get the CoC committed as official Linux policy without any help from anyone else, right?
I agree, they're both stooges. But you should better understand how subversion works. People like "Coraline" and Randi Harper are just stooges who get taken along for their 15 minutes because they are useful and can't see anything beyond that. They're not the prime movers by any means.

Sounds like you didn't read.
Linux played ball over tech issues, and got little at a high price because it does not have enough influence to get a better deal.
At no point I said linux played for influence.

Yes, that's why you try to be self-sufficient while you acquire leverage via popularity/whatever else.

They never said NO because they never were in a position to do so.
The alternative was not supporting an enormous amount of hardware, and the price they paid was reasonable all things considered.
The corps were smart enough not to twist the knife in with humiliating demands.

It's Linus we're talking about.
He routinely rages at some of the biggest companies in the world, companies that could shut down Linux compatibility in a nanosecond if they wished to.
He's probably been blackmailed by some crazy bitch, not by a corp.

I don't think there is some grand scheme at work, the whole thing is too messy and pointless and self-damaging for that: not even the religious studies drama in Israel is so messy, and that is literally jews bickering and outjewing each other.
I think it's just retards going with the flow and cashing in on the victimbux.

womp womp

...

gitlab is basically cucked by Microsoft Azure.

I once thought of advertising my software as "Not developed in California" since everything shitty comes from there.

The only host I can think of that doesn't give a shit about this is gitgud.io, but I don't know for sure. As far as I know, you don't have to worry about some tranny admin deciding to echo the fag flag in your terminal some random day of the year when you do a pull.

This.

It's like you can't read, influence and relevance are different things.
The terms were not accepted to make Linux more popular and thus have more influence at the next meeting, they were accepted so that the current Linux userbase could keep considering Linux as an option a few years down the line.
And that was because accepting the compromise was the only way to solve the tech issues preventing Linux from running well/at all on some new hardware.

Revolutions only get like that after the new guys get to power: when there's chimping out before victory the revolutionaries don't win.
I don't think that mail was a good way to ask for help, especially given Peren's line on people doing dumb shit is pretty soft as seen in
perens.com/2018/09/01/shunning-really/

Let's break this down.
In other words, the terms were not accepted in order to effect an increase in userbase relative to what it was at the time. Is that fair?
In other words, they were accepted in order to effect an increase in userbase relative to what it was going to be in a few years. Is that fair?
If so, I fail to see how the distinction is important. It sounds like you are just splitting hairs to conceal the fact that you either changed your point or else didn't know what your point was to begin with.

You obviously don't know what you are talking about. Those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it.

savannah has been closed for years.

No, because you are confusing means and ends.

Compare the french revolution before the revolutionaries won to what happened immediately after, or the russian revolution pre-elections and post-elections.

lel
What you described is precisely the essence of National Socialism and why it was and still is a supremely good thing.

Even if that were true, what difference would it make to your point? Whether they pursue "relevance" as an end in itself or as a means to some other good, an increase in users is an increase in users. Either that gives them leverage over their corporate contributors or it doesn't, but both cannot be the case.

Why don't you do that yourself?
Revolutions start messy and get worse as time goes on. The first stage in every revolution is to sow discontent and division through subversive propaganda -- as in the case of the French Revolution, the infiltration of the Grand Orient lodges, and the subsequent establishment of Jacobin clubs and literary clubs devoted to revolutionary literature. The literature exploits existing tensions in society -- it does not especially matter what they are -- and if several revolutionary factions oppose each other on this account, it only adds to the confusion and hastens the breakdown of social order.
I really want to encourage you to learn more about revolutions. What's happening now in the open source community follows the exact same blueprint as previous revolutions did.

You're mixing up Gitlab the software with Gitlab the hosting service. The rules you stated apply to projects hosted on gitlab.com, but anybody can put a Gitlab instance on their own server and make their own rules there - which is just what gitgud fags did.

SJW, CoC, Transgender, BBW etc.

ALL that shit originates from USA and it is always Americans that do the master/slave to leader/follower pull requests, creating dram on every GitHub project etc.

So fucking WAKE UP you delusional fat burger, it is YOU that is the problem.

Attached: Liberators.jpg (1200x1619, 226.51K)

HAES and EffYourBeautyStandards really ruined women. Now every woman wears those giant Bozo the clown glasses, shitty chalked on makeup, and horrible clothes that don't fit their body type.

all thots look like clones of one another

This is what happens when country doesn't have easily accessible free mental health care. They could reduce the homeless population in half and significantly reduce crime rates as well. Bernie was right all along.

This.

Attached: IMG_20180913_174336_655.jpg (1280x647, 132.1K)

1. How many of you retards actually contribute to free software in the first place? If you're a 17 year old ricer, then a CoC doesn't address you anyway.

2. Can you demonstrate a piece of software that became objectively worse after the introduction of community standards?

3. Can you explain why "don't personally attack people you disagree with; attack their argument" is a bad guideline for development?

I say all this as someone who favors OpenBSD, which gets along fine without a CoC. I just don't understand why you would drop software you already use over something so tertiary to the code itself.

gitgud.io

1. I do work on some personal projects and occasionally submit patches to other people's hobby projects.
2. It has tended to drive away the original "wild west" spirit in favor of a more politically correct one. Web development is very heavy on the CoCs, and their "culture" is also very stale. But CoCs generally tend to be a symptom, not a cause unto itself.
3. It's not, but that's not what's in the CoCs.
You can read the contributor covenant, for instance: contributor-covenant.org/version/1/4/code-of-conduct
It's a leftist dog whistle, only slightly more transparent than complaining about "cosmopolitan international globalist bankers in New York" or "thugs in the inner city."

Oh I imagine some of these faggots got mental health care, they just found people who will agree with everything they say and not actually help them.

this

You still haven't given an example of a piece of software that is worse off for this.

>You can read the contributor covenant, for instance: contributor-covenant.org/version/1/4/code-of-conduct
There's nothing objectionable in here. If you're a big, serious project like Linux has been for some time now, it means you can't say something like "you're a big fat nigger lololol" through official channels. This means nothing to anybody who is already intelligent/dedicated enough to be contributing to the project.

If calling your collaborators niggerfaggot is so paramount, you're free to fork the code and maintain your own branch where 2007 /b/-tier culture reigns supreme.

No, it hasn't, I haven't read a single thing about bluehairs getting physically assaulted.

No, it's what happens when a country doesn't have a culture. The Americans have completely tossed aside their history, folklore, and tradition because it reminds them of slavery, wars, and other shit that is completely removed from culture itself. This leads people to latch onto consumerism and being an """"individual"""", spurred on by (((them))) so they can make every shekel they can. You'll see this kind of shit wherever a society rejects it's culture. It's just that the U.S. has gone so long without one.

1. Probably very few. I don't subscribe to the kernel mailing list, but I would be surprised if the reaction were anything like here.

2. That's putting the cart before the horse: the degradation in code quality comes first as more and more bad programmers and non-programmers get involved. When enough dead weight has a stake in the project, it leads to more attention being devoted to social issues and community building. By the time the project is willing to start enforcing a code of conduct, readability and correctness of the actual code have been de facto de-prioritized for a long while.

3. That's not how this code will be used, and I think you know it. There is guaranteed to be a double standard.

How it feel to be retarded.
Besides, America is too busy with it's own downward spiral from trying out shitty ideas they imported from elsewhere.

This. Look at what happened to Sweden. Large parts of the history were literally retconned away, and other parts were edited to better match America. And then look what's happening there now.

I think that's fair to say. This doesn't only apply to dyed-hair caricatures, but business types as well. One of the reasons why I at least understand the gut reaction against CoCs is that their phrasing is very "corporate," like something out of an HR department. And it is mainly hanger-ons and bureaucrats who advocate their introduction, not programmers.

While they strike me as transparently performative and largely redundant, I'm still not convinced that they harm collaboration as much as they are inevitable markers of the mainstreaming of a project, with all the baggage that entails.

I don't understand the future tense here. They've been in use for some time now. I'd be interested if you could point me to some instances where a CoC has been arbitrarily leveraged against a developer.

Isn't that obvious? If people come to mailing list shitposting they get banned for spam, problem solved. Why do you need a 2 page leftist ideology essay to explain that some people have mental illness that makes them think there are more than 2 genders?
Also:
Are you seriously supporting this? CoC shouldn't affect my private life. If I tell a faggot to fuck of outside of the scope of project under CoC, should I get banned for that action?
It's more subtle than that, take for example projects who deem master/slave relationship problematic. bugs.python.org/issue34605
Or perhaps take this as an example:
github.com/keybase/keybase-issues/issues/1678
github.com/WICG/feature-policy/issues/150
github.com/rails/rails/pull/32582
This is your code on CoC.

Okay, let's go over it and play "spot the dog whistle"

In the interest of fostering an open and welcoming environment, we as contributors and maintainers pledge to making participation in our project and our community a harassment-free experience for everyone, regardless of age,
body size,
disability,
ethnicity,
sex characteristics,
gender identity and expression,
level of experience,
education,
socio-economic status,
nationality,
personal appearance,
race,
religion,
or sexual identity and orientation.
Our Standards

Examples of behavior that contributes to creating a positive environment include:

Using welcoming and inclusive language
Being respectful of differing viewpoints and experiences
Gracefully accepting constructive criticism
Focusing on what is best for the community
Showing empathy towards other community members

Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants include:

The use of sexualized language or imagery and unwelcome sexual attention or advances
Trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks
Public or private harassment
Publishing others’ private information, such as a physical or electronic address, without explicit permission
Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a professional setting

For instance, "body size." What do you think that's a reference to?

I'm not sure CoCs really qualify as leftist ideology. CoCs make it off limits to personally insult somebody. There are plenty of right-leaning endeavors where this behavior is also considered unacceptable. Don't politicize your anti-social tendencies.

If you track somebody from the project down, contact them on another channel, and harangue them with the intention of discouraging them from contributing further, then it sets everybody back. Once again this behavior would absolutely get you fired from any real organization as well, no matter how left/right leaning it were.

The examples you've posted seem to be symptoms of the bureaucratic churn that naturally invites code-adjacent bottom feeders. I addressed that in the previous post. As silly and pointless as those complaints are, they don't harm the software itself.

It means that you can't make fun of a collaborator for being fat. I don't see a problem with that.

We have imageboards to insult each other. I'm not sure why you're dead set on bringing that mentality to a mature project's mailing list.

This right here. They'll all start bitching that comments someone makes in private or outside the project are "unwelcoming", or "alt-right", or some other bullshit. It's already happened, see

And then they'll complain about other words they deem offensive. Fuck, 4 years ago they complained about the word "bro" in "brotli" being racist.

Honestly, if these people don't like what people say outside the project, then don't use the project, don't contribute to the project, and so on and so forth.

Way to go in the completely opposite direction, retard. Look at the CODE only. There should be a script that anonymises github threads so people can't claim discrimination. The only reason you even need to know somebody's name is to put it in the credits.

WHICH IS PRECISELY THE POINT OF VITRIOL
We explicitly don't want an "inclusive" community - we want an exclusive one. The harder we exclude the cancerfags, the better it will be.

how the fuck did I reply to the wrong post
meant for obviously

PART1
O right niggers. Hear me out.
I'll talk a little about the things that may be way beyond the software development itself, but imho are crucial in making good decisions about it.

At this point I'll make an assumption, and the rest of this rant will be based on it, so feel free do debate about it.
The assumption goes:
"Technology itself is not the problem, as it's the passive object in the equation. The problem is people." Sounds trivial and boring. It's not. At least for a lot of fags here. The current state of things is clear example.
There's monumental vacuum in the field of choosing right people for the job made directly by legions of hr bitches and orchestrated by (((them))). Unfortunately for you, autistic niggers, to operate on it you need some real fucking social skills. I'm talking at least typical chad level. One of the methods to learn those skills is to observe how social dynamics work in closed groups that are stable across long periods of time.

PART I Clinical examples:
Case I
Let's for a moment talk about the hooligans. You know the fuckers. They can do a lot just for fun, and for their club even more. Some observations about the group dynamics:
Do the group have hierarchy? YES.
Do the members of the group talk about critical stuff in the presence of outsider? NO.
Do the group include everyone that want to be a part of it. NO. They test the promising ones and beat the fuck out of the loosers and faggots that cannot be trusted before they become part of the group. Literal EXCLUSION.
What's happening when some fucker breaks the rules of the group? Protip: there's heavy beating involved and obviously he's not a member anymore.
Can someone whos been kicked out come back? NO. If you're out, you're out. No exceptions.
Do the members of the group trust each other? Not in 100%. Critical information is compartmentalised to multiple members.
Do they share the same values? And how do you think the group is bonded?
Do the fresh members of the group have access to critical information? Are you kidding?
How the member of the group can levelup? By acting with a group in a form that cannot be denied, memoryholed or obfuscated. That's a tribe RITUAL.
Do the group have some undedicated 'rare bird' members. NO. The group can interact with the world through them, but they are not IN the group.
Are the women part of the group? Yes and no. The woman is part of the group as long she is a woman to some man member.
Do the group include literal faggots, niggers, spics, communists, anarchists, valueless loners, soyboys, and loosers? [Heavy beating intensifies].
Do the group have one leader? Rarely. The leader is almost always a collective of the elder members. Their word is law for the group.
Case II
Real life example how the group members act. One of the most enlightening moments that I had recently was at the party with a bunch of aforementioned gentle-mens. They treat me as one of their own, so I was able to see how they operate. There was a situation where some group manlet was interested in particular single gal. Well, what do you do if you are a cocksucking nerd and your manlet friend tries to pick up a gal? You hate the guy and ruin everything by being an interrupting faggot because you want the pussy for yourself. LIKE A NIGGER. How the true member of The Pack, a typical forklifter with 100IQ behaved towards the manlet in that situation? when they all were on a dancefloor he smiled to both manlet and girl and physically pushed the manlet towards the girl. Literal forklifter can handle human relations better than 130IQ Zig Forumsniggers.
Is the manlet part of the group? Hell yes. Is the manlet above the chad forklifter in the group hierarchy? Fuck no. At least not until he has some character, high social skills and some achievements that group values.

MAJOR CONCLUSION:
. The values are above both intellectual skills and material goods.
. Values need to be shared by all group members.
. There's no group without good and constant social contact between the members.
. The group is as important as the job itself.
. The group have hierarchy.
MINOR CONCLUSIONS:
. The group excludes.
. The group tests its candidates.
. The group is more or less formless as members can come and go. Think of one cell organisms. The elders are nucleus, the members are endo-, ectoplasm and membrane guarding the internals, women are reproductive system, etc.
. The group can operate on both open and corporate environments, as it's both organic and hierarchical.

Attached: Amoeba.png (2000x1300, 1014.35K)

PART2
PART II Relation to software development and possible real live aplications:

This part will be about how to build real life group around yourself, or around your common interests. I'm talking about real time group not online. This solution is for people that want to make something, not only talk.

1. How to make a group in the first place? How about that question: how to build selection mechanism that will work efficiently, fast, and that not require a lot of time and skills?
What are prerequisites that need to be met to realistically think about making a closed group of dedicated men? First of all do you have some problems with yourself right now? If answer is yes, than you are fucked bro. Fix'em all. I'm serious. I've dedicated over a decade to become a better man, and currently don't have anything that is stopping me beside real life enemies. The progress is astonishing when I compare myself to who I was in high school. Never give up. If you have personal problems and you will try to become a member of the group you will either fail or you will fuck up the group. And creating a working group in that state is almost impossible because it's 100 times harder, especially in the beginning when things are delicate.

If you have some social skills that place you outside the obnoxious faggot category that means that you have some friends and you can try this experiment:
- list all the people you know that share your value system and potentially can be interested in the job you want to do
- list what you know about them and sort them in groups according to chosen categories
- two categories are essential: dudes I know are cool, dudes that may be cool. First one is no brainer, second one will require some work.

Let's say you picked 10 dudes. Now comes the hard part. What are next objectives? Both selection future group members and reinforcing existing social bond with your closest friends.

If you want to make your close friend a member of your group he need to share most of your values and should share some of your interests. Your competence in the actual field should be a little different with a good overlap. That won't create hard competition and allow both of you to work efficiently.
Test your friends on multiple levels. At this point technical skills are not 100% crucial. More important is that you determine your friends communication quality, selfconciousness, selfesteem (those are not the same), value system (extremly important), personal problems, and mind clarity. To test all of this you'll need to be excellent observer and have a handfull of psychological tricks in your sleeve. Educate yourself in that matter.
If you have couple of friends like that, you can think about some combinations. You can start multiple small test-projects for noting down all possible observations about the guys and then combining them in bigger group. Or if you are confident enough and you all know each other well you can came out with some idea. Just remember that group itself is as important as the task, so prepare to dump the fucks that can't play in the team. To do that you'll need some charisma, so work on it.
Keep politics at bay during work and leave it to the leisure time. I don't need to say that regular meetings after work (once a week is fine) are essential to hardening the group. Think ahead and talk to the group about keeping your mouths shut about important shit when you're among strangers. Observe your friends how they react to the prospect and if they can do it. If not, prepare to dump them in the long run. You can do it by closing some project and excluding them from nex one. This people are most important, so choose them wisely. It's easier to kick them out at the begining than in the future when they can subvert group interests or challange you.

For the distant friends, or complete strangers modus operandi is simple:
- Arrange a meeting, better if it's IRL, and throw at them idea of doing some simple project. It doesn't fucking matter what it is, the project is bait. What is important is observation and selection of the people.
- Watch how they react to the proposition, list them all and note which one is promising, also list all malcontents, whiny bitches, fags with hard depression (they're all out in the long run)
- don't beg, if someone don't wanna do it, just leave the guy (for a moment)
- during work watch them closely, technical skills are not that important, what is important is how they comunicate with you, are they honest, do the play by the rules?
- if you are a leader throw at them some idea, or give them a challange. Observe and note down.
- close project with some party, or just have some beer from time to time with them if you can, people after they drink are more sincere (maybe you'll notice something important?)
- don't make this project time consuming it's not your goal, the goal is to make contact.

Attached: wolfpack.jpeg (285x218, 11.33K)

Kill yourself nigger

PART3
Repeat the steps and mix crew from old projects with new candidates to extract the most sane and valuable people from the perspective of the future group. So they need to know that you work on some bigger shit with some cool dudes. They'll want to join. Don't be to inviting to them. Wait till some of them ask you casually about the major project. That means they want to join, and are prepared to be tested. After some time pick the most trusted guy and give him some minor job in your main group. You need to know as much about this guy as possible, where he lives, are his parents cool, what are his political views, etc. Of course your main group need to know either, and they need to agreed to him joining the group. Arrange a confidential meeting with him if needed. Use bastards curiosity.

How to behave if there's ingroup tension? And there will be, I fucking promise you. It depends on how much charisma and respect you have. If you observed that in some challenging moments of your work everyone is looking at you, that means you are a leader to them. It doesn't matter if they said it at loud or not, its not important, because it's not working that way. So in real critical situation like a fight it is YOU RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE JUDGEMENT. Let's say that your good pal made some unjust action against new member of the group (it happens all the time)? What do you do? Pretend it didn't happen like a little faggot? Well congrats, now your pal is the leader, and you're a bitch. You've just lost the respect of your pal AND the new member. If you fail to deliver at any time during the beginning of the process, than you're fucked and the group is over.
If there's no clear leader when the group is small that means something is wrong. 'Council of Elders' can be extracted and molded only from past group leaders and people that made hard choices in favor of the group.

Your ultimte goal is to have group max 150 people that can be guided by smaller group of 3-5 real close friends, you included. That's equal to the size of a small/midsize successful company. Most of the members will be fine with maintaining jobs and should act as soldiers when your group is in danger. They should know the rules, ideals and values of the group. They should accept them and commit to them or they're out. Also they need to know what are your personal objectives and goals. You need to be known to them, and they need to treat you as one of their own. It's extremly important factor.
The 'Elders' should be prepared to abandon the group if it's absolutely necessary due to group beeing compromised, or in a face of a mass treason. So maintaning rings of privilege is a good idea. Having crucial information safely backuped outside the reach of the group is a good idea.
When another 'Elder' batrays you or the group, he need to be removed from the group imidiately as an example. Choose methods according to $CURRENT_YEAR. This is high risk situation and the whole OPSEC needs to change. Also the group need to know what happened and they need to exclude the fucker as hard as you.
Members from outer ring should be less trusted than Elders obviously. Good leader care for every member of the group, so knowing each other IRL is extremly important. The hardest part of this is to kickstart the whole thing. Once you've done it it's much easier, but the challenges change dramatically. I don't neet to mention that at this point you have balls from steel and mind of the budda. It's another fucking league.

Godspeed cunts.

Attached: 42a0754b30210effbca2b86a68c4c1182e314f487195e6f47d4b36fb60053f97.jpg (960x600, 79.09K)

they can move their hosting wherever they want, anytime. There's nothing keeping them hostage to Azure.

Poettering is German.

How about firing up your own Fossil repo and pointing a domain to it? Literally takes less steps than creating an Gitlab account and an email address for it.

I agree that "they are inevitable markers of the mainstreaming of a project, with all the baggage that entails." As to whether they harm collaboration:

The CoC is explicitly intended to have a chilling effect on undesired speech. It would be difficult to point to an instance of a developer policing his own thoughts in response to the CoC even if such occurrences were extremely common. Therefore I appeal to human nature and common sense: if it were not the case that at least some developers would think twice about how they wrote a comment or what they named a function because of the CoC, then why would anyone feel the need to impose one?

Does OpenBSD have a graphical installer?

Attached: use_what_you_got.jpg (500x817 59.42 KB, 190.82K)

...

...

Sorry for accidentally flooding, but Zig Forums dun goofed and didn't let me know was accepted.

Attached: mpv-shot0006.jpg (1280x720, 126.27K)

gitgud.io

hehehehehehehe
Just use gitlab.ordoevangelistarum.com/
Bless your soul

Master
Bait

Bravo!

Boittering looks like a swede.
10000% cuck.

...

>(((Americans)))
ftfy

Attached: microsoft white genocide jew hate media twitter.jpg (531x532, 84.48K)

One Of LLVM's Top Contributors Quits Development Over CoC, Outreach Program
phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=LLVM-Rafael-Espindola

That's not the only thing these CoCs demand.

He was also basically the only person working on the linker.

Except it does. If Linux will turn to shit, just like all software that has a CoC that mentions gender or race, then 17 y.o. ricers will be forced to use shitware.

You won't inside the US or similar countries. Explicitly banning women opens any host up to discrimination litigation.

Any half decent host is going to at least have "boilerplate" terms to control user behavior. This is mainly a liability issue even if they don't enforce it. As long as no one calls them out on not enforcing, they probably won't.

Good advice, but the bigger it gets, the more problems you run in to, namely the same legal issues referenced above.

Ideally, hosting everything in a major public blockchain would be ideal. Sure it'll be expensive, but you'll have near permanent storage with no regulation. The hard part is just modifying existing systems to utilize it (shouldn't be too difficult). Most blockchain systems also only charge per byte so it will (hopefully) encourage only the most streamlined code. It'll stifle other data though. Otherwise use a peer to peer system between all members involved in a project. Then you don't have any external third party involved at all and the group can manage itself.

git is a motherfucking blockchain got dammit*!

Sounds like he was the one who couldn't keep his politics to himself. Nobody criticized him or attempted to use the code against him; he just took his ball and went home.

And that's the crux of the matter really: right-wingers shiteing their knickers over a bogeyman like they always do. Half a dozen CoCk threads on the front page and you homos still can't provide one concrete example of somebody getting kicked off a project for his personal beliefs.

If you just write code then you will have no issues whatsoever.

Thank you for exemplifying the double standard we all knew would be applied through the CoC. Whereas conservatives are expected to keep their politics to themselves, the CoC explicitly shoves left wing politics down the project's throat:
These categories are deliberately mentioned as intersectional axes of oppression in terms of which leftists are guaranteed a foothold and thus a soapbox. Under these terms, you have a right to bitch at another developer for mansplaining like the toxic cishet white male he is. The cishet white male does not have recourse for your harrassment. That is not what the document says, but it is the praxis of the code. Everyone knows this.

Again, "keep your politics to yourself": acceptable to say to conservatives under these terms, but not to left wing radicals.

These are categories in terms of which there ought to be discrimination. Contributors to any open source or academic project owe a degree of respect and at times even deference to those who are more experienced or better educated than themselves.

Church of Emacs BTFO'd

self-host it

Alright faggot, here is your example:
garfieldtech.com/blog/tmi-outing

There are actually people in the world whose religion forbids them to freely associate with public degenerates. I am one of those people.
A conversation about sexuality has no place in a technical project and only prevents me for reasons of conscience from developing an interest in it. But the obvious idea is to get rid of people like me.

due to aids

user, "mental health" is a completely jewed field for at least a century in America. If anything, giving it even wider reach would make matters worse.