Live data from Hacker News

"Open Source is awful in many ways, and people should be aware of this"

plus.google.com

411–420 of 487 posts

Re: "Open Source is awful in many ways, and people should be aware of this"

#411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For most people the difference between being a complete jerk and a normal guy is simply what they say. Would you tolerate a manager who talked to you this way? I wouldn't. Not even Linus. And then I'd point out all the pretty crappy code Linus had checked in.

Then you'd point out all the pretty crappy code Linus had checked in? That would be your, what, revenge? And a way of showing how not to be a jerk? I don't think Linus would care. Everyone makes mistakes. Linus is a gatekeeper of sorts and he has to "point out crappy code" whether people like his language or not. The outside world just needs to decide how seriously they take these outbursts. I don't think there's any…

That would be my way to point out that if he were aborted due to poor code, he also wouldn't be around.

I just think his hyperbole is a way of expressing good discussion and reason.

Re: "Open Source is awful in many ways, and people should be aware of this"

#412

I think this is an important point for people to accept, acknowledge, and keep in mind as a reason to strive harder to be open and accepting to people, especially those you don't agree with. I got a bunch of attacks from members of the open source community, due to developing my XML parser. ( Grant McLean and others ) I also got attacked by Poul-Henning Kamp, and then threatened that he would "shame" me for pointing…

I would love to hear some details. When I've see PHK get vicious he's always been right.

He's been in this game years longer than most and perhaps he's tired of defending the right way nicely.

Re: "Open Source is awful in many ways, and people should be aware of this"

#413
post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know about anyone else, but when I read Linus write: "Of course, I'd also suggest that whoever was the genius who thought it was a good idea to read things ONE F✦CKING BYTE AT A TIME with system calls for each byte should be retroactively aborted. Who the f*ck does idiotic things like that? How did they noty die as babies, considering that they were likely too stupid to find a tit to suck on?" https://lkml.or…

> (p.s. the irony of posting such an offensive post by starring out the u in fuck... does he not see the irony?) Linus is fully capable of writing "fuck", as evidenced by e.g. [1]. If he stars it out, assume it is a stylistic choice for that particular message. > then I don't think I'd ever contribute to the LKML. If you can't handle a message like that, then perhaps it's just as well. Note the context (though I can…

Note that the above referenced "retroactively aborted" rant was not directed at Kay. It was instead directed at some unnamed developer who had set up kernel log handling in Debian with a "dd bs=1 if=/proc/kmesg of=/var/run/klogd/kmsg", which was copying the kernel log one byte at a time to a FIFO (presumably because something reading the log was better able to deal with a FIFO than whatever strange semantics /proc/kmesg has).

Kay had then made /proc/kmesg semantics somewhat weirder, by not blocking but instead returning 0 when the available buffer wasn't big enough to read into; normally, returning 0 to a read indicates that the file has been closed, while if there simply isn't data available yet the call is supposed to block until it is.

So Linus was asking Kay to fix the issue, but also making an aside about how stupid it is to try to read one byte at a time from the kernel.

Now, there was the other incident you mention, in which Linus did get upset enough at Kay for not responding very well to a big report, but this one was not that; he was merely asking Kay to fix a bug, and cursing out some unnamed other developer for having done something as dumb as byte-at-a-time reads.

Not really defending either side here. I find Linus excessively caustic on these issues, and Kay a bit too unwilling to admit when he needs to fix a bug. I feel like Lennart gets way more hate than he deserves; he can be a bit difficult to work with sometimes, but it's crazy how some people think that he's single handedly out to destroy the Linux ecosystem.

I run a lot of software originally written by Lennart (Avahi, Pulse, systemd, heck, I recently even started using ifplugd on systems that still needed to use ifupdown but we wanted to respond properly to network cables being connected and disconnected), and find that it tends to be higher quality, more well designed, and more stable than a lot of the other code in the stack. Due to the fact that much of it changes the "traditional" way that systems worked to a very different but friendlier way, there tend to be a few integration issues along the way for early adopters; if you don't want such integration issues, it's probably best to use a stable distro like RHEL/CentOS or Debian Stable, rather than a quickly updating distro that ships code that's not yet ready for primetime like Ubuntu, Fedora, or Debian testing/unstable.

Re: "Open Source is awful in many ways, and people should be aware of this"

#414

Re this part, about Linus Torvalds being aggressive and insulting to his contributors: But no, it's not an efficient way to run a community. If Linux had success, then that certainly happened despite, not because of this behaviour. You have to have been utterly brilliant to invent git. I don't know enough about operating system internals to say if the same is true for Linux, but I know enough about git to say it's tr…

I'm not sure git is an example of capital-G Genius, since Linus had been using BitKeeper, a commercial distributed revision control system, for about five years by the time he wrote git. Git is good, but it's not new.

More importantly, Linus took a good look at Monotone, with which git has a lot more in common than with BitKeeper... and the same is true of Matt Mackall/Mercurial of course.

The incremental improvements in git/Mercurial were of course significant in getting wide adoption.

Re: "Open Source is awful in many ways, and people should be aware of this"

#415

Lennart specifically called out Gentoo; as a Gentoo user, I do want to speak up in defense of the Gentoo community. I will concede the point that Lennart has, by far, probably received more vitriol per-capita from the Gentoo community than any others. I'm not going to defend any of the personal attacks launched on him. However, Lennart writes very opinionated software, and the opinions it takes are more at clash with…

Indeed. About ten years ago, there was a saying on Gentoo site saying that it is a bug if you can't customize your gentoo system the way you want it. Personal attacks are not OK, but he should keep his opinion on what _my_ machine should do for himself. For what it is worth, his systemd is a bug.

  For what it is worth, his systemd is a bug.
There is no way in which you can look at systemd and say that "it's a bug". It may be a system not engineered the way you would prefer, but it absolutely isn't "a bug". It's a large, well engineered piece of software, that solves many pain points of traditional ways of managing services and sessions on Unix-like systems over the years.

What way would you like to customize your system that you cannot using systemd? I'm genuinely curious if you've ever tried using it.

Now, there are many valid reasons why systemd may not be to your taste. No one is forcing you to use it. There are projects in which development is moving to depend on systemd, because it provides a lot of functionality that other systems don't, and the people writing that code don't want to have to reinvent the wheel. Lots of software has dependencies, some of which you may not like, but you shouldn't blame Person A for making a system that you don't want to use, that Person B who writes software you do want to use depends on; and really, blaming Person B isn't particularly helpful either, as they are just trying to get the job done efficiently and don't have the time to maintain many different backends for many different incompatible session management systems.

Re: "Open Source is awful in many ways, and people should be aware of this"

#416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>What you're describing is a particular mailing list configuration (one often seen today); not what mailing lists are. So are you! Your original point hinges entirely on having many non-centralized posts and counting them as part of the list.

I only described the technical back-drop for mailing lists. The behaviors of setting Reply-To: headers, and of rejecting posts from non-subscribers, are still implemented as hacks against the old mechanism. These configuration features have not changed how mailing lists work. My original original point is that moderating mailing lists is not possible. I have not seen an effective counterargument. Reply-to munging and…

In a 'modern' mailing list a troll will be able to spam people on the list, but they won't really be replied to. They won't be able to participate. The actual conversations will be moderated.

Re: "Open Source is awful in many ways, and people should be aware of this"

#417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you seriously not see the difference between Lennart saying something like "if you don't like it, you're wrong and should use another distro" [that doesn't use Systemd] and Linus saying things like "you should have been retroactively aborted" and "you're so stupid I can't believe you didn't die as a child'? Or the difference between him telling someone not to use his software and people setting up crowd funding to…

Death threats are never justified. But I was paraphrasing Poettering's responses to perfectly valid criticism. He did basically say "fuck off", just sugar coated it, which doesn't make it any better. It's just really incongruous to hear someone who is so polarizing (on purpose!) claim that other people should not be so polarizing. And funny how he never seemed to notice these assholes until his friend, Kay Sievers, g…

Are you aware that Poettering's PulseAudio project runs on Windows? Are you aware that the only Linux init system that ever ran on a non-Linux kernel (sysvinit) did so only because the FreeBSD and Hurd kernels implemented the Linux-specific /proc filesystem?

Re: "Open Source is awful in many ways, and people should be aware of this"

#418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Contrary to this, I find myself envious of a person who can dress down another in a flagrant and creative way. If I got dissed in such a hyperbolic way from a boss that was paying me, I would leave. In a situation where I've toiled in a position of importance in a project I work on in my free time, and I screwed up, I think I'd be hurt if I was dismissed lightly and without creative ire. I mean, I want to know that i…

I can't imagine using shame as my primary motivator for improving my work.

Well, presumably a job well done is the primary motivation, or perhaps the recognition of your peers. It is only when you have previously achieved importance and are now in a position to have face to lose; here is where shame can come into play.

Constructive criticism is helpful and should always be the first stop on the train. But if you should already know better, or that ground has already been well-trodden, then it just sounds patronizing. This is where being told to shape the fuck up is the kind of message I would expect to receive.

What would be even worse is being ignored or shunned.

Re: "Open Source is awful in many ways, and people should be aware of this"

#419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You cannot moderate mailing lists because they are not centralized. When you hit "reply all" in a mailing list, the replies go directly to everyone who is on the To: or Cc: list. The list robot is just one of those parties. And of course, private replies are possible that the list robot doesn't even see. Some lists try to fix this by abusing Reply-to: to try to steer discussion replies to the list address, but that i…

Maybe that's how mailing lists worked "a quarter century" ago, but it's most certainly not how mainstream mailing lists work now.

Yes, one might think that; I understand where you're coming from. And it would be a valid argument if mail clients and mail protocols worked differently today compared to a quarter century ago.

How mailing lists operate is constrained by how e-mail works. E-mail is very conservative.

(Yes, various things are there that weren't there a quarter century ago, like parsing out MIME-attached HTML and rendering it. Sure, SMTP is optionally authenticated and encrypted now. And in the routing and delivery infrastructure we have things like DKIM, SPF and DMARC. And we have DNS-based anti-spam databases. But by and large it's the same. The way a client sends and receives has not fundamentally changed.)

E-mail is a mine-field for people who think they have some great idea about some quick fix to a perceived problem.

About fifteen years ago, it seemed---to multiple people at the same time---like a brilliant idea to write an extension for a mail client (or a procmail script or whatever) to automatically answer all e-mails from senders who are not on a white-list, and challenge them to verify that they are real. That would solve all forgeries and spams, they thought! Oops ...

Re: "Open Source is awful in many ways, and people should be aware of this"

#420
post #194

Poettering's M.O. is basically to force people to adopt changes that piss off a lot of people, and then whine when he doesn't get his way or he gets push back by standards boards who aren't interested in his personal agenda. Keep flouncing, Lennart. I'm sure this is the best way to get people to be nice to you or adopt your changes.

I liked your original pre-edit comment, since it portrayed your attitude even better: "Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahaahhahahahahahaha Was about to argue the merit of this post, then noticed the author. Almost got me, Poettering ;-) Just another social/political manipulation to get his way at the expense of others. I would feel bad for the guy if he wasn't such a whiny prick the rest of the time." I especiall…

I think it's reasonable to not argue the merits of a post from someone[generic] known to be manipulative.
Post reply on HN