Occurences of swearing in the Linux kernel source code over time
vidarholen.net105 points by microsoftedging 3 days ago
105 points by microsoftedging 3 days ago
I'd note that "retarded" can be a technical term which is not an insult or swear word which means "delayed" (e.g. "tardy") In an internal combustion engine you could have "advanced" or "retarded" spark timing for instance.
It's an amusing area where denotations are the same in French and English but the denotations are different. [1] All over Quebec you see convenience stores called "Couche-Tard" (Sleep Late) which can provoke a double-take like seeing a sign for a restaurant called PFK with a picture of Colonel Sanders.
[1] An ad for a breakfast sandwich, coffee and hash browns can be advertised as "L'Ensemble Quotodienne" a phrase made of everyday words in French which are $20 words in English.
Not in source code, but the word is also officially used in aviation as an automated audio warning to the pilots to, IIRC, slow down or pull back. The system screams "Retard! Retard! Retard!". I think they often hear it during normal landing procedures.
Once upon a time planes dropped only gravity bombs that just fell with the forward speed of the launching aircraft. These exploded directly under the aircraft (see all ww2 footage). Then were developed "retarded-fall" or delayed bombs with fins or parachutes so that the bomb's forward movment slowed and it exploded behind the aircraft (see vietnam footage of bombs with pop-out fins). Then came laser-guided "smart" bombs. So we now have "smart" bombs which are guided, "dumb" bombs which arent, and "retarded" bombs which are dumb bombs that slow down. We have accidentally fallen into pc trap where it can be difficult to use these terms.
Retarded fall: https://youtu.be/3_RM19hOMo4
Microsoft is catching up with Linus.
Theory: the shift towards lesser swearwords is a sign of corporatization, making the linux source a soulless bland hellscape of confirmity.
> bland hellscape of conformity
I see three reasons to use swearwords sparingly, even though they don’t particularly offend me.
1 Managing my own emotions. Most swearing is negative and that drags you down which is not very productive or fun.
2 Managing others‘ emotions as they burst out, which stresses the people around the swearer.
3 Some people just can’t say a fucking sentence without gratuitous swearing which makes them sound fucking stupid.
Hey I use fucking in every fucking possible way but I'm only slightly fucking stupid ok? Fuck man.
TIL: Politeness makes one soulless.
I don't personally care if a swear word appears in code, but I do care if I offend others with my use of swear words. So, I try to limit their use to circumstances where offense is unlikely. Work is rarely such a place, particularly with shared resources like code. I might swear in a 1-on-1 conversation at work, but I definitely don't drop swear words into documents that unknown people might see. That's just basic professionalism.
the point being that there was a time (some greybeards might remember) where contributing to the linux kernel wasn't "work" but a fun hobby
Sure, but that time was nearly 30 years ago. Linux has been "mainstream" since at least August 1999.
people like me contributed their freetime afterwards still
People still do. I think the point he's making is that the bulk of the kernel's source coming from people paid to do it has been a thing for probably over 20 years.
I have never worked on a big corporation. But I find interesting about corporations forbidding swearwords in code. I mean, the people responsible for forbidding swearwords rarely read code. And if they read code with any frequency and are somewhat proficient at it, most likely they have their own list of swearwords.
Also we should look to add more keywords to programming languages that trigger naïve filters. I'm all in for another era of broken censorship to poke fun at the people who know nothing, but always have an opinion.
I don't personally care about language choices in code, but I'll play devil's advocate and speculate as to why a business might be concerned.
1. Reputational harm in the event that code needs to be shared. Say, the code gets read in court, or an outside consultant is brought in who is given access to the code. The company likely wants to maintain the same standard of professionalism that they expect when their employees write or utter spoken language in the workplace for the same reasons.
2. Similar to #1 but nuanced enough to deserve its own mention: code is a business asset. It can be sold or licensed out. The company may fear that language that it deems unprofessional could depreciate the value of that code in the context of selling or licensing it to 3rd parties.
Personally I think that the fuss over "bad words" is deeply irrational to a religious degree. The idea that arbitrary sequences of phones or characters will cause anyone within ear or eye-shot to become offended is rather absurd. But you can't choose what planet you do business on and, on Earth, there are a lot of silly people.
>The idea that arbitrary sequences of phones or characters will cause anyone within ear or eye-shot to become offended is rather absurd.
No more absurd than the notion that a mere sequence of sounds could convey any other meaning or elicit any other response.
If a comedian elicits a laugh from a person - who is at fault if the person laughs, the comedian or the person?
I would argue that the person is at fault. Unless you are suggesting one does not have a choice whether to laugh or not.
If that were true, then all comedians would either be funny, or not funny, for all people. That is simply not the case.
Fault doesn't really have anything to do with the original assertion. In any case, that's a pretty weird take on comedy. When you hear a joke, do you ponder it, decide to interpret it as funny, and then deliberately choose to laugh?
People take offense, whether the other person intentionally gave it or not.
I choose not to be offended by anything what soever. Humor on the other hand is a lot harder to deal with.
Nonsense. You are making the assumption that laughing is always voluntary, and only to communicate that you find something amusing. Both parts of that are false - for example many people will laugh instinctively as part of a fight flight response when the perceive danger from others to communicate "hey im with you and not scared, don't hurt me more". People who hate veing tickled because they feel defenseless will still laugh when tickled, for one concrete specific.
> No more absurd than the notion that a mere sequence of sounds could convey any other meaning of elicit any other response.
I completely disagree. It is a lot more absurd. Language is not a priori. It must be learned. It requires both a speaker and a listener. Both must understand the meaning of the spoken word as well as other factors of communication, including tone and body language, in order to interpret and understand the communicated meaning.
The idea behind a "bad word" is that the word is offensive no matter what. It doesn't matter what the dictionary definition of the word is, or the intended meaning of the word or the subject of the sentence that employed the word. The word is intrinsically "just bad" according to this religious belief.
Objectively, sometimes there are polite ways to use a "four letter" word such as "fuck." The preceding sentence is one such example. But ... if you hold the irrational view that I am describing, there is no such thing. It is ALWAYS "bad." This is a faith based belief system. There is no grounding for such a position. Under such a position, even an academic discussion of the word would require it be censored for fear of offending someone.
You describe it as a religious belief. Surely you are aware that there are actually people with religious beliefs? The rationality of religion aside, belief that there are people with religious beliefs is anything but irrational.
> Surely you are aware that there are actually people with religious beliefs?
Yes. What's your point? It doesn't make those beliefs rational. Faith is belief in something despite the absence of evidence. I am using the term "religious belief" interchangeably with "faith based belief system."
> belief that there are people with religious beliefs is anything but irrational.
I have no idea what you are trying to say in this sentence.
- I don't "believe" that there are people with religious beliefs. I observe that to be the case.
- I never described "belief that there are people with religious beliefs" as irrational.
I think your point might be that, because there are people with irrational beliefs out there we must appease them? Or something?
I really don't know what you're trying to say here. There are people out there who believe in crazy things. We agree on that. How we should treat those people, or react to their existence, is entirely outside of the scope of conversation. It is perfectly acceptable to call an irrational belief irrational.
We were talking about language and communication and the absurdity that there is a such thing as an arbitrary sequence of phones or characters that would cause anyone exposed to that to be offended. All I was saying is that such a belief is unfounded. I honestly don't know what you are trying to say.
>There are people out there who believe in crazy things. We agree on that. How we should treat those people, or react to their existence, is entirely outside of the scope of conversation. It is perfectly acceptable to call an irrational belief irrational.
But in this context, the purportedly irrational belief is that some phrases are offensive. If you accept that there are people who would, rationally or not, be offended by some phrases, then I don't understand why you would even make the claim that it's absurd to believe that some people would be offended by some phrases.
> But in this context, the purportedly irrational belief is that some phrases are offensive. If you accept that there are people who would, rationally or not, be offended by some phrases, then I don't understand why you would even make the claim that it's absurd to believe that some people would be offended by some phrases.
Now I understand why we are talking passed each other. Thank you for the clarification.
You are reframing my premise and, in doing so, changing it to something I never said.
Although before I explain the source of our misunderstanding, I want to point out the irony that you are coming from a philosophically "subjectivist" position and are defending a philosophical "intrinsicist" position. Usually they are two opposite extremes and tend to be at odds with each other.
Subjectivism is the idea that perception creates reality. We often will hear people use language like "my truth" vs "your truth." Your position is subjectivist in the sense that you are clinging to a premise (that I never refuted or discussed) which states that "SOME people are offended by certain words, therefore 'bad words' exist."
Again, that's not the premise I stated or was discussing. But after your clarification, this is the premise that you thought we were discussing.
The intrinscist position states: "Certain words are bad by their nature. They will automatically cause ANYONE who hears them to be offended."
it is the "intrinsicist" position that I was calling absurd. I never said that there aren't people who hold this belief. And I never said that there was no such thing as PEOPLE who get offended by words.
I was saying that the idea that a word unto itself can be "bad by nature" is absurd. And I stand by that.