linux-kernel - Re: CFD: linux-wanking@...r.kernel.org (was [PATCH] Standard indentation of arguments)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <48348F4D.1020500@keyaccess.nl>
Date:	Wed, 21 May 2008 23:08:29 +0200
From:	Rene Herman <rene.herman@...access.nl>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:	tytso@....edu, viro@...IV.linux.org.uk,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: CFD: linux-wanking@...r.kernel.org (was [PATCH] Standard indentation
 of arguments)

On 21-05-08 22:50, Andrew Morton wrote:

> On Wed, 21 May 2008 22:38:04 +0200
> Rene Herman <rene.herman@...access.nl> wrote:

>> Yes. Their company's problem. I must say I'm getting rather sick of this 
>> hiding behind culture. Does anyone think it's good for _anyone_ from any 
>> culture to be publicly called upon their mistakes? Public is simply what 
>> this development is and what makes it different from other types.
>>
>> People who can't deal with it either grow up, go away or better still, 
>> try their damndest to minimise mistakes to avoid the experience in the 
>> first place. That last one in fact is one of the fundamental reason why 
>> open source works.
>>
> 
> Sigh.
> 
> There are kernel contributions which have not been submitted partly
> because their developers are apprehensive about the way in which they
> will be treated.
> 
> This is not theory.  It is not a guess.  It is not speculation.  It is
> empirical observation.

Do note that in the above I did not suggest that the problem isn't real. 
I'm just suggesting that it's not the _kernel's_ problem. The openness 
adds significant value to the kernel. I'd say more value then would be 
brought in by developers who now shy away from the process.

And yes, it's general openness. Noone is being ripped apart when they 
actually listen to feedback.

> We have a bad reputation.  I think it is largely undeserved nowadays,
> because things have got a lot better.  But once a reputation has stuck,
> it is hard to get it unstuck.
> 
> When I am on the podium and this problem is brought up by an audience
> member (as regularly happens), my usual response is to say that things
> have become better, that the problem was discussed at some length at
> kernel summit a few years ago (as it was) and that people generally
> agreed that it was a problem and that we should do better and that we
> are doing better.
> 
> And we _are_ doing better.  On average.  But in this area, averages
> do not count.  It's the maxima which are noticed.

The actual case in point was a little odd though. I do not for a minute 
believe that any serious developer is going to shy away from submitting 
serious code due to an alignment patch getting a cynical slapdown.

Rene.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/