Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Abuse is indefensible

blog.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 221 posts

Re: Abuse is indefensible

#131

Post by raverbashing »

tptacek wrote: post #125
raverbashing wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because them some people think it's still ok to go with the broken code That's cultural differences 101 As a simple example: in Canada one might say "please do not feed the animals" in a Zoo. In some other places, for the message to have the same effect it must be as such: "It is expressly forbidden to feed the animals! Those being caught doing so will be expelled from the zoo!"

Wait. "Broken" code?

From the original Linus email

"And yes, you still could have overflow issues if the whole "hlen + xyz" expression overflows, but quite frankly, the "overflow_usub()" code had that too"

Re: Abuse is indefensible

#132

Post by mikeash »

yAnonymous wrote: post #114

Yes, it's harsh, but it gets the point across in a very memorable way. He knows very well how people perceive it, but code quality and his reputation as a developer are more important to him than the reputation he gets from his rants.

I don't find it very memorable, aside from it reinforcing the memory that Linus is often a jerk. All the insults and general ranting get in the way of the point, they don't reinforce it.

Compare with some classical technical rants like, say, The UNIX-HATERS Handbook. It has a wonderful ranty tone to it, but it's also full of pretty solid technical information and reasoned technical opinions. The tone makes it memorable without getting in the way of the information. It's far from a reference book, but it's great material. It's an amazing reminder of how much the computer industry loves to forget the past and then eventually reinvent it.

Linus's rant, on the other hand, is about... integer overflow, I guess? And code readability? And I don't think he actually explains anything about either one, so I don't know why he prefers one version to the other, but I know he prefers it really strongly.

Churchill said, "Diplomacy is the art of telling people to go to hell in such a way that they ask for directions." Similarly, a really good technical rant is one where you call the other person a complete and utter idiot in such a way that they thank you for your help.

Re: Abuse is indefensible

#133

Post by dingaling »

eis wrote: post #20
unfamiliar wrote: post #2

I've read a few of Linus' rants and been on the fence, but this one does seem to have crossed some sort of line into being unnecessarily abusive, and to add to that, unclear communication. The rewritten version really does emphasise a much better approach. Linus's rant doesn't read like it was written by... a stable person. I was in full agreement with the article up until this: >Of the many things I could say about…

I had the same feeling about the last bit of the article. Drama for no reason. I would be glad if the tech community focused more on tech than on shitstorms. Some people are just too sensitive. If you don't like how Linus behaves, then don't deal with him. Noone forces you. But why post an article on your blog which is associated with Mozilla including a gist of collected swear words? At least Linus didn't engage in…

> If you don't like how Linus behaves, then don't deal with him. Noone forces you.

That's a pretty steep hurdle for potential contributors to Linux.

But I suppose that's BSD's gain.

Re: Abuse is indefensible

#134

Post by comex »

amdavidson wrote: post #112
Kristine1975 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Brendan Eich stepping down as Mozilla's CEO was not due to speech: >His appointment sparked controversy over a $1,000 political donation Eich had made in 2008 to the successful campaign for California Proposition 8, which sought to establish that, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

While I don't agree with his personal donation or Citizen's United, that case held that political donation is a form of protected speech[0]. So in a very literal way, he was pushed out due to the manner in which he chose to speak. 0: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/citizens-united-v...

You don't have to support the Citizens United decision to think that contributing small amounts to political campaigns is effectively speech - because the money is used to promulgate speech (ads), as well as in the more abstract sense that donations are viewed by society as a normal and encouraged outlet for people to promote their viewpoints.

(Of course the humongous donations the decision enabled are also used to promulgate speech, which is why I have some sympathy for it, but there's just a huge difference in practice between giving $1,000 and giving millions.)

Re: Abuse is indefensible

#135

Post by marrs »

enneff wrote: post #126
marrs wrote: post #118

As I understand it, the Linux codebase has hundreds of regular contributors and Torvalds basically spends his entire time reviewing patches to an operating system kernel that is used in countless mission-critical scenarios across the world. The implications of introducing a bug or security exploit to an OS kernel could be as severe as loss of life. With that in mind, I find myself wondering every time I read a report…

> But if I choose to make a contribution to Linux, even a few years from now, I will remember what practices to avoid through my memories of this and previous rants. This reads like fantastic satire.

Do go on

Re: Abuse is indefensible

#136

Post by arguseyes »

delinka wrote: post #124
arguseyes wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people on this planet can deal with opinions just fine. Case in point: the recipient of Linus' message. It only ever seems to be an issue for those entitled, self-absorbed Title IX crybabies for whom every opinion they disagree with is "literally rape". :-)

So you've stereotyped over three hundred million people to be "self-absorbed Title IX crybabies for whom every opinion they disagree with is 'literally rape'." I still don't see how this is relevant or contributes to the discussion.

> I still don't see how this is relevant or contributes to the discussion.

This is something you should definitely work on then.

Re: Abuse is indefensible

#137

Post by mikeash »

thomashabets2 wrote: post #64
ZanyProgrammer wrote: post #19

Why is it that people who support Linus' tirades and mention freedom of speech, etc get so incredibly hurt when others exercise their own freedom of speech and point out how abusive they are?

Because one is saying "what you are saying is wrong" and the other is saying "you should stop talking". That's a fundamental difference. If they get hurt (big "if"), then they are still not saying "and that means you are not allowed to talk". Are you seeing an inconsistency that I'm not?

OK, so "you should stop talking" is bad.

How about, "you should stop talking about how that guy should stop talking"? Does that qualify too?

Does every meta-level have the same problem, or is there a limit to how deep it goes?

Re: Abuse is indefensible

#138

Post by tptacek »

raverbashing wrote: post #131
tptacek wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait. "Broken" code?

From the original Linus email "And yes, you still could have overflow issues if the whole "hlen + xyz" expression overflows, but quite frankly, the "overflow_usub()" code had that too"

I'm afraid that doesn't clarify, because if the overflow_usub code is broken in that sense, then so is the code Linus is advocating for. Do you still think "broken" was the right word to use? Why?

Re: Abuse is indefensible

#139

Post by mikeash »

x1024 wrote: post #7
jimbokun wrote: post #5

Can anyone defend Linus' version as better communication than Eisenberg's?

Nobody will try to pull that shit again for quite some time. The "Constructive" version will be handwaved by submitting the same code again and giving literally any deflecting excuse like "You're just afraid of using new technology like this function.

"We should be careful to get out of an experience only the wisdom that is in it and stop there lest we be like the cat that sits down on a hot stove lid. She will never sit down on a hot stove lid again and that is well but also she will never sit down on a cold one anymore."

The lesson a lot of people are going to learn from this is, "Don't submit any code to Linux." Not submitting code like this is merely going to be a small side effect. Especially since Linus doesn't explain his reasoning so there's no real way to know if the next chunk of code is going to displease him or not.

Re: Abuse is indefensible

#140

Post by marrs »

nabla9 wrote: post #128
snomad wrote: post #94

I didn't find this rant abusive. Once worked for a law firm in a high stress industry - some of those lawyers were abusive, woah nelly. Also, have a brother who was in army, you can't even imagine the language of he and his friends. This is child's play and someone who ultimately cares about delivering a quality end product who was offended by someone taking away from that mission. And his point was right, the code w…

>I'm most curious on the age / background of those in this thread who do find it hurtful and offensive. Me too. I feel that there is generational shift. For me, abusive means that someone picks you as a permanent target and treats you badly consistently. I'm completely fine with people calling me with names over some issues when it's clear that they are fighting against me over some specific issue. I'm allowed to use…

I agree, and I think you're both right that it's generational.
Post reply on HN