[rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

  On Tue, May 01, 2018 at 11:10:53PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
> [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
> [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
> 
>   > The problem with the joke is that it touches a difficult and complex
>   > topic, namely abortion, and this could be a trigger for certain
>   > individuals causing them to relive a traumatic memory.
> 
> It is not the joke that might lead people to think about abortion --
> it doesn't refer directly to that -- but rather the name of the
> library function, "abort", which is documented there.
> 
> Therefore, if you think that this is a real concern, let's put a
> trigger warning at the start of the section.  I propose thus text:
> 
>    Warning: this section contains function names that might perhaps
>    provoke unpleasant memories for some readers.  We suggest readers
>    use their discretion about whether to read further.
> 
> A GNU manual, like a course in history, is not meant to be a "safe
> space".  It is meant to address a subject.  It must cover the function
> "abort", just as a course in Renaissance history must cover witch
> trials and the inquisition.
> 
> However, there is no reason not to include the trigger warning if that
> is of service to people.
> 
> Whether the joke is included has no effect on this issue.
> 
> Giving birth is far more traumatic than having an abortion, so we
> might want to put a similar warning in sections that mention child
> processes.
> 
There should be following warning

	* manual/process.texi: Warn about disadvantages of child process
  

On 05/01/2018 11:26 PM, Ondřej Bílka wrote:
> There should be following warning
> 
> 	* manual/process.texi: Warn about disadvantages of child process
> 
> diff --git a/manual/process.texi b/manual/process.texi
> index b82b91f..6709e19 100644
> --- a/manual/process.texi
> +++ b/manual/process.texi
> @@ -283,6 +283,10 @@ The child doesn't inherit alarms set by the parent process.
>  The set of pending signals (@pxref{Delivery of Signal}) for the child
>  process is cleared.  (The child process inherits its mask of blocked
>  signals and signal actions from the parent process.)
> +
> +@item
> +Warning: creating a child could take up to nine months and could consume all
> +your resources.
>  @end itemize

+1

Rical
  

Current behavior of abort() is unacceptable: it terminates the process
unconditionally. glibc users should be free to decide whether a call to
abort() succeeds. It should be a user right, not a developer imposition.

Although I am in favor of user rights, some freedoms should be
restricted. For instance, calls to kill() from unprivileged users should
fail with "thou shalt not kill".
  

On 05/02/2018 12:00 AM, Javier Serrano Polo wrote:
> Current behavior of abort() is unacceptable: it terminates the process
> unconditionally. glibc users should be free to decide whether a call to
> abort() succeeds. It should be a user right, not a developer imposition.
> 
> Although I am in favor of user rights, some freedoms should be
> restricted. For instance, calls to kill() from unprivileged users should
> fail with "thou shalt not kill".

+1 for the individual vs. social dynamic, but it needs a patch.  ;)

Rical
  

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  > +
  > +@item
  > +Warning: creating a child could take up to nine months and could consume all
  > +your resources.
  >  @end itemize

I like that joke, but do we also need a trigger warning?
  

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  > Current behavior of abort() is unacceptable: it terminates the process
  > unconditionally. glibc users should be free to decide whether a call to
  > abort() succeeds. It should be a user right, not a developer imposition.

The GNU system already gives users this control.  For instance, you
can run the program under GDB and put a breakpoint on abort.  That's
how I normally run Emacs, for instance.