The community was already split. Those who tolerated his behaviour and those who didn't.

I don't think it was, at least not that black and white. If the community really was that split the project would not have survived for 20 years. Surely we would have seen a fork where the involved factions split off.

I think this is a very vocal minority in play here. From my understanding these changes did not come from any of the core contributors but rather from activists. The used divide and rule; if you don't sign off on our political documents you are with "them" and we will let everyone know what a horrible human being you are.

I said nothing of how big the split was.

It seems the loud voices about how bad the CoC is aren't actually kernel devs...

But there is atleast one known kernel dev who spoke up about Linus' behaviour, and eventually just quit developing for the kernel.

edit: not to mention those who don't want to touch the kernel because of his behaviour. one guy said the only contributions he makes to the kernel are for his employer. if it wasn't for that, he'd not touch it.

So out of ~6k developers you only know of two malcontents? I don't think that is what 'split' means.

That's very good understanding of recent events codeaken, thanks.

For the 30 years where it was one project, the community was split? And now that it has been forked because of outside political issues being forced in, that's the same amount of split as the last 30 years?

There's a fork of linux right now? Where can I read more? A quick search isn't finding it...

Either that, or some people tend to see "vegetarianism" and "dictatorship/genocide" as orthogonal, while seeing "low-life scum on the internet" and "complaining about too much political correctness" as not orthogonal?

Should the separation not be between ``low-life scum on the internet'' (the far right) and ``not being explicitly politically correct'' (being apolitical)? ``We need more political correctness'' (the far left) is on the reflected axis of ``complaining about too much political correctness'' (the far right).

Thank you for your well-formulated contribution to the discussion.

So basically, you are trolling. Thank you for being candid.

>evoking Hitler was a bad way to make your original argument

You'll notice that I was reducing to the reduction to Hitler, not reducing to Hitler himself. And this is not such a long stride to take, as the reduction to nazism had already occurred in the quote that I was criticizing.

No not really, I genuinely think that evoking Hitler was a bad way to make your original argument.

I'm actually not sure about what you are trying to communicate. Are you attempting to mock me for highlighting logical fallacies?