Prude alert: Sexually explicit wm themes in emerge

Message

erg8 · Post by **erg8** » Fri Jun 18, 2004 8:51 pm

Does it bother anyone else that the windowmaker-themes package contains sexually explicit material?

I did not know this was the case. Imagine my surprise when I emerged windowmaker-themes and tried out my new slick themes only to find pr0n that my boss would definately not approve of.

Yeah. I can delete it. I know how. But how is it that this stuff is in the emerge in the first place?

Any thoughts?

Post by **pjp** » Fri Jun 18, 2004 8:54 pm

I think it'd be good to have that stuff in obviously marked packages. windowmaker-themes-notsafeforwork, or similar.

erg8 · Post by **erg8** » Fri Jun 18, 2004 9:00 pm

In order to be completely correct... the offending themes may have come with Windowmaker itself (as opposed to the themes packeage). I'm not sure as I emerged one then the other.

Post by **pjp** » Fri Jun 18, 2004 9:03 pm

I think it applies to the windowmaker folk as well. Since linux isn't just a geek-in-a-dark-closet thing, it would be considerate to seperate it.

allucid · Post by **allucid** » Fri Jun 18, 2004 9:08 pm

you should submit a bug report to bugs.gentoo.org

i remember something similar to this being discussed before and somebody brought up having an 'adult' use flag.

placeholder · Post by **placeholder** » Fri Jun 18, 2004 9:11 pm

Odd.... I suppose you can check you USE flags in that case. If that's not the case, then I completely agree that this needs changed. Gentoo isn't only for perverts you know.

nrl · Post by **nrl** » Fri Jun 18, 2004 9:17 pm

I think the best solution is to make use of the "offensive" USE flag so that unless people have "offensive" in their USE flags they won't get this stuff. After all that's what it's there for, according to the docs the "offensive" USE flag "enables potentially offensive items in packages."

PS A similar situation that occured a while ago with GLSnake:
http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?t=155097

placeholder · Post by **placeholder** » Fri Jun 18, 2004 9:29 pm

So -offensive would probably get rid of those problems then?

spb · Post by **spb** » Fri Jun 18, 2004 9:33 pm

Pwnz3r wrote:So -offensive would probably get rid of those problems then?

Well, it ought to, if the package maintainers used it. As it is, some do and some don't.

@erg8: File a bug asking for the themes you reckon are NSFW to be filtered out when the 'offensive' USE flag isn't set. You shouldn't have much trouble getting it fixed.

erg8 · Post by **erg8** » Fri Jun 18, 2004 10:13 pm

http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=23635

It appears to me that this is an ongoing problem and the fact that another instance has already cropped up (note the final comment on the bug report), I don't think my comment will add anything to the discussion.

This would be a great place for someone higher up than me to take a stand. (As opposed to what is going on now... bug... fix... bug... ignore... bug... fix...)

People could get fired for this. I could get fired for this. Does anyone at Windowmaker feel at all responsible for the quality of the content they are putting out?

Edit: see also:

http://www.gentoo.org/news/en/gwn/20030 ... hap1_sect6

Hypnos · Post by **Hypnos** » Fri Jun 18, 2004 10:40 pm

Are we dealing with straight-up porn or something more along the lines of what's in my screenshot

http://www.sourav.net/Screenshot.png

which is inspired by a Fluxbox theme. I use this at work.

mat74 · Post by **mat74** » Fri Jun 18, 2004 11:02 pm

Oh c'mon guys. It's not like there is any wallpaper with some real action on it. Do you really consider nudity as porn?? Don't be so prudish. No one forces you to actually use them.

scalded · Post by **scalded** » Sat Jun 19, 2004 12:52 am

Any chance of implementing a ++offensive flag so we can get sexually explicit widgets with kdebase?

Hypnos · Post by **Hypnos** » Sat Jun 19, 2004 12:54 am

scalded wrote:Any chance of implementing a ++offensive flag so we can get sexually explicit widgets with kdebase?

That's one bit of bloat I could use in my GNOME setup

minimizebeefgoo · Post by **minimizebeefgoo** » Sat Jun 19, 2004 2:19 am

mat74 wrote:Oh c'mon guys. It's not like there is any wallpaper with some real action on it. Do you really consider nudity as porn?? Don't be so prudish. No one forces you to actually use them.
:wink:

Some people have kids.

Post by **pjp** » Sat Jun 19, 2004 6:18 am

mat74 wrote:Oh c'mon guys. It's not like there is any wallpaper with some real action on it. Do you really consider nudity as porn?? Don't be so prudish. No one forces you to actually use them.

In a US work environment, it could cost the person their job and a company a lot of money from a sexual harassment lawsuit. So I say, Oh c'mon, get your own porn/nudity/art that may be inappropriate for some.

Drooling Iguana · Post by **Drooling Iguana** » Sat Jun 19, 2004 8:57 am

* emerges windowmaker-themes *

Gotta get it before it's too late!

placeholder · Post by **placeholder** » Sat Jun 19, 2004 9:14 am

I just stick with my own Fluxbox theme and find my own wallpapers. If there's a theme with a nude or slightly nude female, why does it really matter that much? If you get fired for something like that and you don't work in a place where a lot of minors come by, then just sue the place and move on. Or you can just get fired and take it all like a cold rod in the ass when you get a colonoscopy. However, I don't like doing things that way.

Unless the images offend you personally or you work in a day care center, I really don't see what's wrong. I mean, it's not like it's two people having sex, right?

Drooling Iguana · Post by **Drooling Iguana** » Sat Jun 19, 2004 9:17 am

Still, I think it would be a good idea to seperate that type of image from the main themes package.

That way I wouldn't have to sort through the boring "regular" themes to get to the good stuff.

ralph · Post by **ralph** » Sat Jun 19, 2004 9:28 am

Drooling Iguana wrote:Still, I think it would be a good idea to seperate that type of image from the main themes package.

That way I wouldn't have to sort through the boring "regular" themes to get to the good stuff.

emerge Pr0n

Seriously, if these kind of things could get you fired in the US this is a problem and should be resolved.

sca · Post by **sca** » Sat Jun 19, 2004 9:44 am

minimizebeefgoo wrote:Some people have kids.

Well, every kid will have to learn how a naked women looks like, sooner or later

And if you think about some 12yr old, they probably know how to get their pr0n

Back to topic: I wouldn't mind such a flag, as long as it defaults to 'uncensored'.

placeholder · Post by **placeholder** » Sat Jun 19, 2004 9:44 am

The censorship in the US is horribly ignorant. I mean, is it going to seriously impair a little kid if (s)he sees female breasts? Is it that (s)he's not going to in the future? Especially the she version.

Nefarius · Post by **Nefarius** » Sat Jun 19, 2004 10:08 am

tr4nce · Post by **tr4nce** » Sat Jun 19, 2004 2:06 pm

emerge unmerge Janet Jackson

asimon · Post by **asimon** » Sat Jun 19, 2004 2:10 pm

I was very impressed as I installed SuSE 9.1 a couple of weeks ago. When installing fortune a message popped up, which informed that fortune contains offensive cookies but SuSE don't want to censor things and thus they did'nt left out the offensive stuff, and asked for confirmation if it really should be installed.
IMO a much better solution then to not include the offensive fortunes at all.

That would be a good solution for Gentoo too. Mark offensive stuff and let people configure portage to not install/show offensive stuff at all or give warnings on a per package base and ask to confirmation.