Message-ID: <20101213223739.GD15472@one-eyed-alien.net>
Date:	Mon, 13 Dec 2010 14:37:39 -0800
From:	Matthew Dharm <mdharm-kernel@...-eyed-alien.net>
To:	Luben Tuikov <ltuikov@...oo.com>
Cc:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [USB] UASP: USB Attached SCSI (UAS) protocol driver

On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 01:46:58PM -0800, Luben Tuikov wrote:
> --- On Sat, 12/11/10, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
> > 
> > > Alan, don't you work for the same company as do the
> > authors listed in "uas.c"?
> > 
> > If you've got nothing better to do than insinuate further
> > unpleasant
> > things when people try and help then don't expect any help
> > from anyone.
> > 
> > *plonk*
> 
> When in doubt, follow the money.

Luben, let me congratulate you.  You are the first person ever to be put
into my killfile.  Ever.  This is a first, and I have personal e-mail
archives stretching back almost 2 decades.  This will be my last message to
you; I would have to look to see if it was the only one.

Your insinuations against the character of many long-standing Linux
developers, based on their refusal to accept your submission, are simply
beyond the pale.  I could just as easily make every one of these
accusations against you -- who pays your salary, for example?  What are
their interests?  You make claims about your motivations, but how am I to
verify any of those?

The linux community works because it is exactly that -- a community.  We
have, just like any other community, standards of decorum.  You have
violated those standards, repeatedly, despite several people politely
telling you the proper manner in which to behave.

> Did you review my driver? Did anyone else in this thread? No, of course
> not. You didn't even do it the second time I called your bluff in this
> thread. Why not? Simple, it's not what you're getting paid to do now.

*bzzt*  Wrong.  I did review your driver.  I found it interesting, but upon
first submission I found no compelling reason to prefer it over the old.
Your initial submission gave no such reasons.

It was only until, after your submission was refused, that you addressed
the technical merits of your driver over the existing one.  I will admit,
you have some valid technical points.  But, they are completely overridden
by your inability to work within the standards of behavior of the community.

If, at any time, you had decided to stop using ad-hominem attacks and
instead made a calm, composed, and well-reasoned statement about why the
work to fixup the existing driver would be worse than doing a drop-in
replacement, we would have listened.  You came pretty close to doing this,
but seemed completely unable to resist personal attacks against members of
this community.  And you never really addressed, beyond a 1-line statement
stating that to fixup the existing driver you would need to replace it
wholesale, why working to improve the existing driver is a bad choice.

We look to submitters to maintain their work.  Yes, there are apparently
some difficulties getting Matt W. to push the ball forward on his UAS
driver.  However, dealing with you is comparable to drinking napalm; I
would much rather deal with someone who is less-than-responsive rather than
someone who is abrasive.

Matt

-- 
Matthew Dharm                              Home: mdharm-usb@...-eyed-alien.net 
Maintainer, Linux USB Mass Storage Driver

We can customize our colonels.
					-- Tux
User Friendly, 12/1/1998

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped

Powered by blists - more mailing lists