netdev - Re: [RFC] bonding driver terminology change proposal

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:   Wed, 15 Jul 2020 13:56:54 +0100
From:   Edward Cree <ecree@...arflare.com>
To:     Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
        Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>
CC:     <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Jarod Wilson <jarod@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] bonding driver terminology change proposal

Once again, the opinions below are my own and definitely do not
 represent anything my employer would be seen dead in the same
 room as.

On 13/07/2020 23:41, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> As far as userspace, maybe keep the old API's but provide deprecation nags.
Why would you need to deprecate the old APIs?
If the user echoes 'slave' into some sysfs file (or whatever), that
 indicates that they don't have any problem with using the word.
So there's no reason toever remove that support — its _mere
 existence_ isn't problematic for anyone not actively seeking to be
 offended.
Which I think is more evidence that this change is not motivated by
 practical concerns but by a kind of performative ritual purity.

This is dumb.  I suspect you all, including Jarod, know that this
 is dumb, but you're either going along with it or keeping your
 head down in the hope that it will all blow over and you can go
 back to normal.  Unfortunately, it doesn't work like that; the
 activists who push this stuff are never satisfied; making
 concessions to them results not in peace but in further demands;
 and just as the corporations today are caving to the current
 demands for fear of being singled out by the mob, so they will
 cave again to the next round of demands, and you'll be back in
 the same position, trying to deal with bosses wanting you to
 break uAPI without even a technical reason.
And next time around, the mob will be bolder and the bosses more
 pliant, because by giving in this time we'll have signalled that
 we're weak and easily dominated.  I would advise anyone still in
 doubt of this point to read Kipling's poem "Dane-geld".
And we'll all be left wondering why kernel development is so
 soulless and joyless that no-one, of _any_ colour, aspires to
 become a kernel hacker any more.

It's not too late to stop the crazy, if we all just stop
 pretending it's sane.

-ed