RFCs are hard, let's go shopping. You'd hope that people writing allegedly sensible mail clients would have slightly more respect for RFCs, but it appears not ...

Mike Hearn's 'Linux Problems' page has some interesting assertions on how to 'fix' Linux and make it 'enterprise-supportable' (which seem to boil down to: distributions suck, so avoid them; Python sucks, so avoid it; C++ sucks, so avoid that too; glibc, gcc and headers suck, so they need fixing; shared libraries, too, are hard for us, so we'd like other people to avoid dealing with them because autopackage is king).

The Debian bit is just flat-out wrong:

Debians dependency scanner is broken anyway, as there's no way to tell what version of a library is actually needed. Only the developers know that. It works around that problem by assuming that the binary requires whatever version it was built against (which as we see elsewhere may be true or may not be).

Cute, but no. Packagers can specify in shlibs files, the last ABI break. So if your library adds a new interface in 2.1.3-1, then you can put:
libfoo 1 libfoo1 (>= 2.1.3-1)
in your shlibs file, and wham, anything built against libfoo now gets that dependency. Of course, if the downstream packages are really ninjastupid, they can hardcode in their library deps.

Why should the convenience of Debian packagers, who number in the low 2s, outweigh the convenience of people who download autopackaged binaries from the website, who number in the high 200s/day?

Actually, last I checked, there were close on 1000 registered Debian developers, who had gone through the long process. I don't know how long the New Maintainer queue is (except: really long). There are millions and millions of users of Debian and its derivatives (Ubuntu, Knoppix, Maemo, et al). If you're going to be a condescending twat, could you at least please try to be accurate, instead of picking on Debian for being insignificant compared to your hundreds of downloads per day?

David writes that, while momentum is a very good way to keep flames away, it's really solidified by proper code of conduct. I don't disagree with either of these positions, but they're both characteristics of a good culture that enables things to get done in a productive atmosphere, rather than the causes themselves.

One of the problems is that you can't enshrine, 'don't be a tool' in a code of conduct. Yes, you can legislate away personal attacks, so there's no more Serious problems with Mr. Troup, but it's still entirely possible to completely subvert the development process while still remaining within the bounds of any particular code of conduct. The key here is that the code of conduct is just a rough guide to, and a method of enforcement of, any given culture that you wish to enforce.

If you want to change Debian's current developmental culture, you'll need more than just a document: you'll need a landslide mindshift within the entire developer base, which will be extremely difficult to achieve, given that some particular developers seem to champion their lack of social skills, delight in annoying others, and glorify petty arguments on mailing lists as being superior to actually achieving anything. When you get this, the code of conduct is really just fluff, because it becomes almost entirely self-enforcing. The general tone of the list and attitude of the developers discourages people from being idiots, and you don't have to point to the code of conduct except in serious cases.

So that's the really hard part. Debian has a destructive culture that has led to debian-devel and debian-private becoming the pointless landfill it is today. Which is no slight on Debian developers as a group, or any particular developers; it's just the way it is today. How it got that way is entirely unclear, but how it's going to move on from there is an equally perplexing question.

And, in response to Joss, the two go hand in hand. Once you've stopped arguing for the sake of it, you're infinitely more productive as a result. So I don't think calling people advocating change in Debian's social norms 'teletubbies' is at all useful: these people aren't advocating turning Debian into a sewing club where we all turn up and talk about how much we love each particular developer. What they're advocating is change of the current Debian social culture such that trainwreck threads full of personal attacks, mindless bitching, and argument for the sake of it, don't exist anymore. You can have robust debate within that framework, and you don't have to completely vet every statement you make so it's a glowing reflection on everyone and everything mentioned. If you have the right culture, you can simply tell trolls once to go away, and they get utterly ignored, instead of having their threads blown up into huge all-consuming flamewars by people who seem to love seeing their name in the mailing list index. I don't see how you conclude that any hypothetical code of conduct exists purely to facilitate trolling either, but maybe I'm missing something.

The current problems in Debian with people being unable to relate to fellow developers, so instead getting bored and flaming them into the ground instead, isn't a techincal problem in the least. It's a social problem. The entire point of this debate isn't, 'which MTA should we install by default, if any', but 'how do we fix Debian's current culture?'. I don't see how this is a technical problem, but it does have technical ramifications (e.g. releases take years of banging our collective head against a very large wall).

So, I just wrote some code that had a subtle bug in it: if you hit ^C at the wrong time, it would run kill(-1, SIGTERM), which kills every process you're running. I discovered this, recovered the damage, and started my session anew. Once I'd done this, I checked my email, where there was a new email awaiting me, entitled 'Competence Development News'. HR are taunting me.