Randi Harper has quit FreeBSD. Now they just need to get rid of their code of conduct, like OpenBSD has.

Amazingly, they agreed, following the lead of a number of other open source projects that have instituted wacky, social justice warrior-led codes of conduct for their contributors in recent months. However, Harper still wasn’t satisfied.

“They later published a Code of Conduct, which went so far as to use the term “meritocracy”, and didn’t make a clear distinction between code mediation and responding to abuse.” That’s right, readers. One of the reasons Harper left FreeBSD was because the project valued meritocracy.

No doubt sick and tired of having to deal with her, and the damage she was doing to their public image, FreeBSD decided to ask Harper to remove the name of their project from her Twitter handle (then “@FreeBSDGirl”). According to Harper: “I received an email from this person threatening to involve the FreeBSD Foundation lawyers if I didn’t change my username immediately.”

Harper ends her post with a farewell to FreeBSD. “After 12 years, I left the IRC channel, and will not be going to any BSD conferences or participating in the community going forward. I remain friends with many people involved with the project, but FreeBSD no longer feels like my home.”

Now, codes of conduct are bad. Linus managed to produce a “Bill and Ted” code of conduct which I am extracting from (emails and links redacted) because he wrote something that could not be weaponized against him.

Code of Conflict
—————-

The Linux kernel development effort is a very personal process compared to “traditional” ways of developing software. Your code and ideas behind it will be carefully reviewed, often resulting in critique and criticism. The review will almost always require improvements to the code before it can be included in the kernel. Know that this happens because everyone involved wants to see the best possible solution for the overall success of Linux. This development process has been proven to create the most robust operating system kernel ever, and we do not want to do anything to cause the quality of submission and eventual result to ever decrease.

If however, anyone feels personally abused, threatened, or otherwise uncomfortable due to this process, that is not acceptable. If so, please contact the Linux Foundation’s Technical Advisory Board or the individual members, and they will work to resolve the issue to the best of their ability. For more information on who is on the Technical Advisory Board and what their role is, please see: …

As a reviewer of code, please strive to keep things civil and focused on the technical issues involved. We are all humans, and frustrations can be high on both sides of the process. Try to keep in mind the immortal words of Bill and Ted, “Be excellent to each other.”

I await with interest Randi dealing with Linus. Because she will… lose.

However, one has to be careful. Some distros will want people like her involved. Stay crunchy and cold in your choices.

Besides, the Randis of this world are too easy to defeat.

The SJW are a fun enemy — not too hard to defeat, but they do lament enough to be satisfactory targets.

We do live in semi-interesting times, in the sense that none of the enemies we currently have are real scary (due to competence, think Mongol hordes/Hitlerians/Soviets for size where attitude + ability = worrying, Even ISIS is nowhere near that magnitude.)

That’s the problem with winning big (as we did back then), it softens up the talent pool to a point where a bunch of safe-space hippies are tough enough to kick anyone’s butt with queen-bee bully tactics. Why is why we have been losing this badly lately, there is no challenge to really motivate people, and everyone has so far been getting fat on the morning wimpabix (let’s be reasonable) ration.

What we need is enemies, not victims.

{I’m not sure that the SJW will be sufficient, it’s a good entree. But, it’s wimps’n’turtles all the way up it seems, sigh).

Our war is not with imaginary turtles and petunias, but with those who would use force to silence truth, or kill those of faith.