Slashdot Mirror


Linus Torvalds: "GCC 4.9.0 Seems To Be Terminally Broken"

hypnosec (2231454) writes to point out a pointed critique from Linus Torvalds of GCC 4.9.0. after a random panic was discovered in a load balance function in Linux 3.16-rc6. in an email to the Linux kernel mailing list outlining two separate but possibly related bugs, Linus describes the compiler as "terminally broken," and worse ("pure and utter sh*t," only with no asterisk). A slice: "Lookie here, your compiler does some absolutely insane things with the spilling, including spilling a *constant*. For chrissake, that compiler shouldn't have been allowed to graduate from kindergarten. We're talking "sloth that was dropped on the head as a baby" level retardation levels here .... Anyway, this is not a kernel bug. This is your compiler creating completely broken code. We may need to add a warning to make sure nobody compiles with gcc-4.9.0, and the Debian people should probably downgrate their shiny new compiler."

739 comments

  1. Great. Now the sloth community... by jpellino · · Score: 5, Funny

    is going to be gunning for an apology...

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
    1. Re: Great. Now the sloth community... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Linus is retarded plz ignore his remarks

    2. Re: Great. Now the sloth community... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $: retarded -name Linus

      retarded: command not found. please try apt-get install not-retarded.

  2. Job Vacancies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "sloth that was dropped on the head as a baby"

    I don't know about coding but I have part-time vacancies in trolling CNN articles if he's interested.

  3. gcc is like congress by NemoinSpace · · Score: 5, Funny

    It works better when they do nothing

  4. "pointed" by Arancaytar · · Score: 5, Funny

    From Torvalds, that's uncharacteristically friendly.

  5. Re:Great. Now the sloth community... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm a sloth and I thought it was funny.

  6. Or upgrade to llvm ... by perpenso · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Debian people should probably downgrate their shiny new compiler.

    Or upgrade to llvm. Being above to compile with either gcc or llvm would be a nice option.

    1. Re:Or upgrade to llvm ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      - Upgrade to llvm.
      - The kernel doesn't compile.
      - Upgrade to GCC.
      - Hit some bug.
      - Upgrade to llvm ...

      When do you stop the loop?

    2. Re:Or upgrade to llvm ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      Yeah, because we all know that being a license bitch is much more important than using the right tool for the job. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, GPL zealots can't handle it.

    3. Re:Or upgrade to llvm ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      At one point someone will inevitably try to build it with Visual Studio, and then it's over.

    4. Re:Or upgrade to llvm ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not likely. It will take them until the Heat Death of the Universe to rewrite all those Makefiles as Visual Studio project files, and then convert the C source into that subset of C++ that Visual Studio calls C these days.

    5. Re:Or upgrade to llvm ... by maccodemonkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Debian people should probably downgrate their shiny new compiler.

      Or upgrade to llvm. Being above to compile with either gcc or llvm would be a nice option.

      It's amazed me how attitudes from LLVM in the last few years has gone from:
      "OMG WTF why is Apple doing their own compiler why can't they contribute to GCC they want to make everything proprietary"
      To:
      "Hey, LLVM is a pretty great tool."

      I'm happy to see LLVM making such great strides.

    6. Re:Or upgrade to llvm ... by mvdwege · · Score: 1

      That may be an upgrade if all you program in is a C-derivative.

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    7. Re:Or upgrade to llvm ... by perpenso · · Score: 1

      Debian people should probably downgrate their shiny new compiler.

      Or upgrade to llvm. Being [able] to compile with either gcc or llvm would be a nice option.

      "Update to to icc", that I would understand (for Intel platforms). "Upgrade to LLVM" sounds like this is not coming from a C++ programmer who really cares about the final binary ...

      Then your politics is blinding you. Having two unrelated compilers build your code is sometimes helpful in finding bugs in your code. Bug free is goal #1. Being slightly faster is an important but secondary consideration. As I said, it would be nice to have the option to compile with *either* gcc or llvm. Again, note "either", only your politics is creating the straw man of llvm replacing gcc.

      Plus one compiler being faster than another is not a given, things change over time

    8. Re:Or upgrade to llvm ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And when it also does it on platforms other than x86 and arm I might look at it too.

    9. Re:Or upgrade to llvm ... by perpenso · · Score: 4, Informative

      That may be an upgrade if all you program in is a C-derivative.

      "Originally implemented for C and C++, the language-agnostic design (and the success) of LLVM has since spawned a wide variety of front ends: languages with compilers that use LLVM include ActionScript, Ada, D, Fortran, OpenGL Shading Language, Haskell, Java bytecode, Julia, Objective-C, Swift, Python, Ruby, Rust, Scala, and C#."
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...

    10. Re:Or upgrade to llvm ... by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yes. Choice is nice. That's why I've migrated away from all of Apple's 'flagship' products, which are proprietary closed off dead ends.

    11. Re:Or upgrade to llvm ... by gnupun · · Score: 1

      When do you stop the loop?

      When you standardize the language and the library. It should compile and function the same under either compiler otherwise they are not implementing the standard correctly or the standard itself is flawed/buggy.

    12. Re:Or upgrade to llvm ... by bk2204 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      LLVM has improved a lot, but in CPU-bound workloads such as cryptography, GCC still outperforms it by 15% or more.

    13. Re:Or upgrade to llvm ... by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      Actually Visual Studio has Makefile support. :)

    14. Re:Or upgrade to llvm ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you are doing CPU intensive stuff you are likely to go down to asm for your specific hardware platform anyway.

    15. Re:Or upgrade to llvm ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How could you _upgrade_ from GPLv3 to BSD? Sounds like the reverse.

      If you like your freedoms taken away, sure.

    16. Re:Or upgrade to llvm ... by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      What does Apple have to do with it? It started as a pretty cool project, then it got partially adopted by by Apple, and started to smell a bit, but it is still a pretty cool project like it always have been.

    17. Re:Or upgrade to llvm ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      c and c++ is dead language.

    18. Re:Or upgrade to llvm ... by david_thornley · · Score: 2

      There's much to be said for insisting that the kernel should compile and run fine with either compiler. That way, it can't depend on some odd interpretation of the language spec.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    19. Re:Or upgrade to llvm ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When they stop misusing the word "upgrade".

    20. Re:Or upgrade to llvm ... by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      This. I'm waiting for someone to make it easy for me by providing a link to something that explains what corner-case of a corner-case is actually stimulating this bug to buzz its wings.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    21. Re:Or upgrade to llvm ... by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      The AES-NI, PCLMULLQLQDQ and RdRand instructions take 15% longer on LLVM?

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    22. Re:Or upgrade to llvm ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is already a project to build Debian with LLVM/Clang.

      http://clang.debian.net/

    23. Re:Or upgrade to llvm ... by Wdomburg · · Score: 2

      Erm, LLVM was around for half a decade before Apple started contributing to it.

    24. Re:Or upgrade to llvm ... by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1

      I don't think that thing that MS uses for make can, in any reasonable sense of the word, be employed to compiling non-Windows software without essentially rewriting the Makefile.

    25. Re:Or upgrade to llvm ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I recommend that at some point you actually try icc. It's utter garbage. I had most of my experience with it when programming for a super computer, it just....wow. All you can say is the code quality was garbage. Like it didn't handle atomic operations correctly which lead to constant deadlock, it was ridiculous. I've done a lot of multi-processor coding, and I've learned through the school of hard knocks how to do it properly, yet problems left right and center when using icc because it fundamentally created broken binaries.

    26. Re:Or upgrade to llvm ... by mvdwege · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and .NET was language-agnostic too, as long as you mangled your language to look like c# (for the pedants, I believe MS finally fixed that). Spoken like a true fanboi. The fact that a frontend is said to exist does not mean it is any good.

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    27. Re:Or upgrade to llvm ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know if you're behind or I'm in a different environment, but from what I have seen recently attitudes to LLV have gone from:
      "Hey, LLVM is a pretty great tool."
      to
      "actually, LLVM barely manages to compete with gcc on x86 - let's not bring up Intel's compilers since they are too buggy for anyone who values their time - for ARM it's miles behind even gcc which is already fairly bad, and for everything else calling it a piece of shit probably would be being kind".

    28. Re:Or upgrade to llvm ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They also enable the equivalent to -ffast-math by default, which in some (actually, probably surprisingly many) applications causes serious issues. One example being a max() no longer suppression the NaN it should have.

    29. Re:Or upgrade to llvm ... by mvdwege · · Score: 0

      Disregard my previous post, it's even worse than I thought. If I take your own source, it doesn't even back up its own introduction. According to that Wikipedia page the only frontend mentioned that is in better state than a vague 'state of development' is Haskell.

      So yeah. You're a stupid fanboi who cannot but parrot marketing language.

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    30. Re:Or upgrade to llvm ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hyperbole. You may be able to find results supporting this claim on x86 targets, but that's not what you said. On ARM and x64, gcc does not outperform LLVM in any consitent way. gcc is the world leader for x86 code generation because it contains decades of special hacks for this specific ISA. LLVM is behind only on x86-specific hacks, and in a world that's going x64-only, that's increasingly irrelevant. There's are reasons Apple went LLVM-only for ARM/x64, and Sony went LLVM-only for PS4 (x64), one of which is that they know better than to trust sweeping claims about gcc's performance that don't stack up against the facts, and that are tacitly claimed for the entire range of codegen targets when in fact they only apply to x86.

    31. Re:Or upgrade to llvm ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What standard? Linux is not written in C. The reason you can't compile Linux on just anything is because it embraces a whole bunch of non-standard language additions made by the gcc team. LLVM tries to support the same extensions, for obvious reasons, but you can't do that by reading any language standard.

    32. Re:Or upgrade to llvm ... by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      Note: I am not the grand parent.

      Actually, you should care. Modular software is more resistant to bugs

      Not really.

      easier to maintain.

      I've seen some pretty terrible modular software, with layers of abstractions on abstractions on abstractions to avoid rewriting other parts of the software. The fact software is modular doesn't magically make it better nor easier to maintain.

      More useful error messages improve developer productivity.

      To be frank, I haven't found the compiler warning or error messages from LLVM that wonderful when it came to c and c++ code.

      It seems that the only thing you actually care about is the execution speed of the generated code,

      Some of us don't like the extra 'fluff' generated by GCC and LLVM just makes it worse.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    33. Re:Or upgrade to llvm ... by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      There's are reasons Apple went LLVM-only for ARM/x64, and Sony went LLVM-only for PS4 (x64),

      The primary reason being GNU GPLv3.

      one of which is that they know better than to trust sweeping claims about gcc's performance

      Nope, that had nothing to do with the decision of not using GCC.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    34. Re:Or upgrade to llvm ... by daid303 · · Score: 2

      I'm not, the code I maintain is to complex for that, and there are no real hotspots. 15% less runtime means a lot to me.

    35. Re:Or upgrade to llvm ... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Clang wasn't. Clang began in 2007, after Chris Lattner had moved to Apple. Before then, if you wanted to compile C code with LLVM, you had to use llvm-gcc, which was a horrible hack that took a forked version of GCC and translated one of the GCC IRs into LLVM IR before code generation.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    36. Re:Or upgrade to llvm ... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      While that's technically true, the Ada and Fortran front ends are both using DragonEgg, which is a GCC plugin that converts GIMPLE to LLVM IR. It doesn't work well with GCC 4.7 or newer, produces poor debug info, and is now largely unmaintained. There is a Flang project to produce an LLVM front end for Fortran, but it's very immature. The Ada Labs guys were looking at producing an LLVM front end for Ada, but I don't know that they got anywhere with it.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    37. Re:Or upgrade to llvm ... by MatthiasF · · Score: 1

      LLVM was started at the University of Illinois and is still copyrighted by them. Apple only hired one of the creators, so I do not see why you are giving them complete credit for developing it.

    38. Re:Or upgrade to llvm ... by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Only for the 1% of your code that is the largest bottleneck, and even then a good modern compiler fed high-level source written with compiler optimizations in mind can often generate machine code that's as good or better than competent hand-coded ASM, due in part to the fact that it need not care about readability, maintainability, etc. Meanwhile assembly requires considerably more developer time to maintain than high-level source.

      Good rule of thumb: stay away from assembly unless you've already:
      - had a profiler pinpoint the code as a bottleneck area
      - written the code with an eye towards being particularly compiler-optimzation friendly
      - analyzed the compiler output and found significant bottlenecks that could be optimized away by hand, and aren't caused by sub-par input source
      It's a pretty rare chunk of code that can make it past all three filters to be potentially worth rewriting in assembly. And those filters don't even consider the significant maintainability losses you typically get by introducing assembly.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    39. Re:Or upgrade to llvm ... by perpenso · · Score: 1

      Disregard my previous post, it's even worse than I thought. If I take your own source, it doesn't even back up its own introduction. According to that Wikipedia page the only frontend mentioned that is in better state than a vague 'state of development' is Haskell.

      The development state of the various language front ends is irrelevant. Their existence proves the point that llvm is not specific to c or c-derived languages.

      So yeah. You're a stupid fanboi who cannot but parrot marketing language.

      Actually the fanboi in this conversation is the person getting all emotional. You might want to re-evaluate who that is. I'm just a person who thinks the option to use gcc **or** an llvm based compiler would be nice. No one is saying gcc should be replaced, you need not get all emotional and defensive. I often like to use different compilers, especially different architecture targets, as a way to shake bugs out of code.

    40. Re:Or upgrade to llvm ... by perpenso · · Score: 1

      LLVM has improved a lot, but in CPU-bound workloads such as cryptography, GCC still outperforms it by 15% or more.

      "When it comes to the run-time performance of the compiled programs, GCC previously outperformed LLVM by about 10% on average. Newer results do indicate, however, that LLVM has now caught up with GCC in this area, and is now compiling binaries of approximately equal performance, except for programs using OpenMP"
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...

    41. Re:Or upgrade to llvm ... by mvdwege · · Score: 1

      Development state doesn't matter? An incomplete frontend means I can't use LLVM for that language, so that makes LLVM specific to the frontends that actually do produce production-quality code: C-derived stuff and Haskell.

      I think you should see someone for those projection issues.

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    42. Re:Or upgrade to llvm ... by perpenso · · Score: 1

      Development state doesn't matter? An incomplete frontend means I can't use LLVM for that language, so that makes LLVM specific to the frontends that actually do produce production-quality code: C-derived stuff and Haskell.

      Actually the gcc front ends are available.
      "dragonegg integrates the LLVM optimizers and code generator with the GCC parsers. This allows LLVM to compile Ada, Fortran, and other languages supported by the GCC compiler frontends, and access to C features not supported by Clang (such as OpenMP)." http://llvm.org/

      I think you should see someone for those projection issues.

      Says the angry name calling man ... seriously, re-evaluate.

    43. Re:Or upgrade to llvm ... by mvdwege · · Score: 1

      And yet again you uncritically take promotional language as true. As someone who actually uses one of the languages supposedly supported by Dragonegg, I would say it would behoove you to look beyond the advertising copy.

      Me calling you a dumb fanboi is not angry name calling. It's a statement of fact, which you thankfully keep proving with every post.

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    44. Re:Or upgrade to llvm ... by perpenso · · Score: 1

      And yet again you uncritically take promotional language as true. As someone who actually uses one of the languages supposedly supported by Dragonegg, I would say it would behoove you to look beyond the advertising copy.

      Interesting, so you knew non-C languages were supported when you claimed otherwise. From dragon egg's current status, it works very well with Fortran and works well with Ada when using gcc 4.6. http://dragonegg.llvm.org/

      Some benchmarks from 2011, so working with Fortran isn't a recent achievement. http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/piper...

      MacRuby (Apple is a contributor to the project) would be another example. http://macruby.org/

      Me calling you a dumb fanboi is not angry name calling. It's a statement of fact, which you thankfully keep proving with every post.

      As unreliable a "fact" as your "fact" of not being able to use non-C languages. Seriously, what gets you so outraged over the idea of being able to use either gcc or llvm, over the idea that llvm is usable with Fortran, Ruby, etc?

    45. Re:Or upgrade to llvm ... by mvdwege · · Score: 1

      And for the last time: Why don't you look beyond the professed support and the actual reality?

      If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    46. Re:Or upgrade to llvm ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Me calling you a dumb fanboi is not angry name calling. It's a statement of fact

      Lol! You have a warped sense of semantics. An insult is an insult, it's not constructive criticism in any way, shape, or form.

    47. Re:Or upgrade to llvm ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > What standard? Linux is not written in C.

      Um, yes it is. Unless by "Linux" you mean everything in the distro besides the kernel.

    48. Re:Or upgrade to llvm ... by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      That troll never gets old....

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
  7. Being able ... by perpenso · · Score: 1

    Debian people should probably downgrate their shiny new compiler.

    Or upgrade to llvm. Being above to compile with either gcc or llvm would be a nice option.

    That should have been "being able". One day I will have to start proofreading.

  8. Not just version 4.9 by kthreadd · · Score: 4, Informative

    According to the actual bug report this problem seams to have started in 4.5. They only triggered it in 4.9.

    https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/s...

    1. Re:Not just version 4.9 by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      Another worrying thing which Linus says there is:

      "The problem is that these things are a bitch to debug - they turn into these completely impossible kernel oopses or corruption, and we were just very lucky that this one case happened to be repeatable and pinpoint for two people. Are there others? We have no way of knowing.."

    2. Re:Not just version 4.9 by sjames · · Score: 2

      Compiler bugs are the worst. No matter how carefully you analyse the program you wrote, you can't see the bug, yet the crashes keep happening.When the code being run isn't the code that was written, all bets are off.

    3. Re:Not just version 4.9 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other words, a difficult bug. Has Linus truly never written a difficult to reproduce bug? Somehow I doubt it.

    4. Re:Not just version 4.9 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      yes it's a bitch, but bugs happen in every piece of software... it's not like we all haven't released software with bugs we didn't know about.. that just 'life'....

    5. Re:Not just version 4.9 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is one of the problems I'm seeing down deep in my shlocky embedded world. I'm losing the ability to reason what the compiler is going to do with my code. I'm not sure, a 20% speedup for me at least isn't worth it. Slower compile times, definitely not worth it.

    6. Re:Not just version 4.9 by sjames · · Score: 1

      Sure, nobody is perfect. It is a serious bug, but it looks like it is being addressed and all will be well.

    7. Re:Not just version 4.9 by Cederic · · Score: 1

      This is what debuggers are for.

      (No, I've never tried debugging a kernel. Yes, I can think of how to start, and no, I can't be arsed)

    8. Re:Not just version 4.9 by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      When the code being run isn't the code that was written, all bets are off.

      It is still the code that was written, just the choices in translation of the high level language to the machine code has some bad behavior as compared to other renderings of the code.

      The only time you're going to get one for one direct mapping is coding in assembly language.

      But I do agree, compiler bugs are a royal pain.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    9. Re:Not just version 4.9 by perryizgr8 · · Score: 2

      the problem is not kernel-debugging, the problem is debugging bugs caused by the compiler misrepresenting your c code in assembly.

      --
      Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
    10. Re:Not just version 4.9 by Immerman · · Score: 1

      But it's not. The language specification sets semi-deterministic rules for how the code must be converted to machine code. In this case the compiler was overstepping those bounds and generating machine code inconsistent with the source code and translation rules. Very inconsistent actually, given that the compiler was also ignoring the flags that imposed more stringent requirements on the translation than those in the language specification itself.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  9. Each new GCC version has regressions by loufoque · · Score: 2

    4.8 was even worse.
    That's hardly news.

    1. Re:Each new GCC version has regressions by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1
      So, 4.9 is bad

      4.8 was even worse

      Gosh! I'm using 4.6!

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    2. Re: Each new GCC version has regressions by loufoque · · Score: 1

      This one had pretty serious performance problems. 4.7 is one of the best.

    3. Re:Each new GCC version has regressions by GiganticLyingMouth · · Score: 1

      4.8 was also the first GCC version that (more or less) had full support for C++11. It's not terribly surprising to get more regressions when adding (many) new features.

    4. Re: Each new GCC version has regressions by loufoque · · Score: 1

      The front end and the back end are separate.

  10. Oe noes! A compiler bug! by serviscope_minor · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Oh gosh a compiler bug! The world is going to end and GCC is terminally broken for ever and ever and ever. Life happens, and occasionally that includes compiler bugs. I've seen fewer bugs in GCC than any other production compiler ever.

    Anyway, it seems like GCC is implementing a very obscure compiler option incorrectly in some circumstances which causes a crash.

    But of course this is cue for lamentations of how awful and braindead GCC is and so much drama.

    End result, the GCC people will fix this bug in short order (what are GCC point releases for anyway), and distributers will probably have a patch package out for 4.9.0 before 4.9.1 ships (what are distributors for anyway?) and the world will keep turning and GCC will go back from being the buggy broken braindead piece of shit to yet again being the most solid production compiler in existence.

    It's a little ironic that the he's so quick to attack the GCC people. The success of Linux is 100% built off the success of GCC. There have been no other credible compilers for Linux throughout the majority of its existence and without GCC being bulletproof, Linux would never have been solid.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
    1. Re:Oe noes! A compiler bug! by amiga3D · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I'm just wishing the Debian folks would do something about putting ffmpeg back in the repo. That shit about the ffmpeg that wasn't really ffmpeg caused a lot of trouble with breakage. I'm not even going to mention that buggy, smelly pile of shit called wodim that made burning optical media on linux go from easy to massive frustration. One silver lining though, I've learned to compile from source.

    2. Re:Oe noes! A compiler bug! by QuietLagoon · · Score: 2

      ...It's a little ironic that the he's so quick to attack the GCC people. ...

      Especially since the Linux kernel has always been bug-free.

    3. Re:Oe noes! A compiler bug! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      torvalds is a drama queen. anything that someone else broke is a huge fire, while his mistakes are also somehow your fault.

    4. Re:Oe noes! A compiler bug! by BitZtream · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      End result, the GCC people will fix this bug in short order (what are GCC point releases for anyway)

      The bug was reported 4 point releases ago. It just now started effecting the kernel.

      Claiming the GCC crew will 'fix this bug in short order' is like claiming Obama is leading the charge in transparent government.

      GCC has never been a solid production compiler.

      The success of Linux is 100% built off the success of GCC.

      You have that pretty much backwards. Without Linux, GCC wouldn't matter to anyone. Linux can be built with other compilers with a little effort, ask Intel about it.

      There have been no other credible compilers for Linux throughout the majority of its existence

      You're pretty clueless. Intel would beg to differ. No one that matters compiles high performance code on GCC, they use the Intel compiler.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    5. Re:Oe noes! A compiler bug! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Linus is very consistent with attacking people. Creating buggy code is fine. Pushing it upstream is not. Releasing it as stable is a mortal sin.

    6. Re:Oe noes! A compiler bug! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh gosh a compiler bug! The world is going to end and GCC is terminally broken for ever and ever and ever. Life happens, and occasionally that includes compiler bugs. I've seen fewer bugs in GCC than any other production compiler ever.

      Anyway, it seems like GCC is implementing a very obscure compiler option incorrectly in some circumstances which causes a crash.

      But of course this is cue for lamentations of how awful and braindead GCC is and so much drama.

      End result, the GCC people will fix this bug in short order (what are GCC point releases for anyway), and distributers will probably have a patch package out for 4.9.0 before 4.9.1 ships (what are distributors for anyway?) and the world will keep turning and GCC will go back from being the buggy broken braindead piece of shit to yet again being the most solid production compiler in existence.

      It's a little ironic that the he's so quick to attack the GCC people. The success of Linux is 100% built off the success of GCC. There have been no other credible compilers for Linux throughout the majority of its existence and without GCC being bulletproof, Linux would never have been solid.

      Well, that didn't take long.

    7. Re:Oe noes! A compiler bug! by NotInHere · · Score: 4, Insightful

      End result, the GCC people will fix this bug in short order (what are GCC point releases for anyway)

      The bug was reported 4 point releases ago. It just now started effecting the kernel.

      In fact, it has been fixed in trunk even before Linus' rant.
      https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/s...

    8. Re:Oe noes! A compiler bug! by mvdwege · · Score: 5, Funny

      Claiming the GCC crew will 'fix this bug in short order' is like claiming Obama is leading the charge in transparent government.

      Since the bug has already been fixed, I suppose this means you'll be wholeheartedly endorsing Obama now?

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    9. Re:Oe noes! A compiler bug! by serviscope_minor · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Claiming the GCC crew will 'fix this bug in short order' is like claiming Obama is leading the charge in transparent government.

      Care to take a wager that it will be fixed in 4.9.1?

      GCC has never been a solid production compiler.

      Utter crap, bordering on an outright lie.

      The list of systems I've developed on is something like: PCs, Sun, SGI, HP, AIX, PICs, 8051, Blackfin, ARM, AVR and probably a bunch I've forgotten about. I've used very many compilers over the years. There has not been one that can match GCC in solidity and general lack of bugs.

      Not. A. Single. One.

      But apparently "production compiler" in your world means something completely different.

      You have that pretty much backwards. Without Linux, GCC wouldn't matter to anyone. Linux can be built with other compilers with a little effort, ask Intel about it.

      As far as I know, it's been GCC, Intel (which is useless for Linux's most popular platforms) and TCC. I don't know of anyone who actually uses a non GCC compiled kernel.

      You're pretty clueless. Intel would beg to differ. No one that matters compiles high performance code on GCC, they use the Intel compiler.

      Ah no TRUE scotsman would use GCC. Got it.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    10. Re:Oe noes! A compiler bug! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're pretty clueless. Intel would beg to differ. No one that matters compiles high performance code on GCC, they use the Intel compiler.

      Unless they want to not use Intel processors, because the Intel compiler was known to cripple the performance on non-Intel processors. I'm also wondering now who is buying the PathScale compiler?

    11. Re:Oe noes! A compiler bug! by armanox · · Score: 0

      I've seen fewer bugs in GCC than any other production compiler ever.

      Anyway, it seems like GCC is implementing a very obscure compiler option incorrectly in some circumstances which causes a crash.

      But of course this is cue for lamentations of how awful and braindead GCC is and so much drama.

      End result, the GCC people will fix this bug in short order (what are GCC point releases for anyway), and distributers will probably have a patch package out for 4.9.0 before 4.9.1 ships (what are distributors for anyway?) and the world will keep turning and GCC will go back from being the buggy broken braindead piece of shit to yet again being the most solid production compiler in existence.

      It's a little ironic that the he's so quick to attack the GCC people. The success of Linux is 100% built off the success of GCC. There have been no other credible compilers for Linux throughout the majority of its existence and without GCC being bulletproof, Linux would never have been solid.

      Really? I hate GCC with a passion. Otherwise, we wouldn't have 'gccisms' that affect code portability to other POSIX platforms. GCC can go DIAF for all I care.

      --
      I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
    12. Re:Oe noes! A compiler bug! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does Linus hinder the GCC development?

      What happened here is that someone compiled the kernel with GCC. The result was buggy and crashed. It landed on Linus table when it should have been reported to the GCC developers.
      Linus spend time tracking down a bug that he wasn't responsible for and out of his reach to fix.
      He has the right to be cranky.

    13. Re:Oe noes! A compiler bug! by evilviper · · Score: 0

      GCC is terminally broken for ever and ever and ever.

      GCC is a mess that has been getting consistently worse since 3.0. It's so bad that compiling GCC with GCC, with any CPU optimizations enabled, produces a non-working compiler. It just keeps getting bigger and slower, and has a great many proprietary GCC-isms that open source developers keep using, not even realizing they're bugs.

      The crappiness of GCC has driven tons of people away, and spurred the development of LLVM, tcc, and others.

      I've seen fewer bugs in GCC than any other production compiler ever.

      Either you're not looking (myopia is fun), or you have very little experience with other modern compilers.

      End result, the GCC people will fix this bug in short order

      With this much publicity, they might... But major bugs that get reported, but don't hit the /. front page, and often linger for year after year.

      The success of Linux is 100% built off the success of GCC. There have been no other credible compilers for Linux throughout the majority of its existence

      Only true if you drink rms' kool-aid... Otherwise, any of the proprietary compilers out there would have done the job just fine. Or Linux developers would have put some effort into getting another compiler up-to-par for their purposes if nothing had been available, kinda like they did with the kernel...

      And now, the competition is just waiting to break-through and rid us of all the GCC nonsense.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    14. Re:Oe noes! A compiler bug! by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      The bug happens to manifest on version 4.9.0. How many Linux kernel versions have you know to be bugfree.

      GCC is the most robust compiler around. Don't compare it with ICC which breaks compiling anything other than microbenchmarks.

    15. Re:Oe noes! A compiler bug! by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      Really? I hate GCC with a passion. Otherwise, we wouldn't have 'gccisms' that affect code portability to other POSIX platforms. GCC can go DIAF for all I care.

      So, tell me mr GCC hater, which compilers don't have non-portable extensions?

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    16. Re:Oe noes! A compiler bug! by serviscope_minor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      GCC is a mess that has been getting consistently worse since 3.0. It's so bad that compiling GCC with GCC, with any CPU optimizations enabled, produces a non-working compiler.

      [citation needed]

      It just keeps getting bigger and slower, and has a great many proprietary GCC-isms that open source developers keep using, not even realizing they're bugs.

      Every single compiler out there offers nonportable extensions.

      Either you're not looking (myopia is fun), or you have very little experience with other modern compilers.

      I could level the same complaint at you. The other compilers have more. Like full up ICE crashes.

      Only true if you drink rms' kool-aid...

      Ah and now we get to the root of it. You've decided to throw logic and facts to the wind and just go off on an I-hate-RMS-so-I-hate-GCC-by-proxy rant.

      Grow up.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    17. Re:Oe noes! A compiler bug! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a little ironic that the he's so quick to attack the GCC people.

      Most likely he prepares the community for the eventual upgrade to pcc compiler.

    18. Re:Oe noes! A compiler bug! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with this sentiment. Sadly with clang/llvm there is now a compiler shoot-out where correctness and developer features are secondary. They get fixed when exposed in embarrassing ways like this, so good on Linus for having a rant and making GCC escalate this bug.

      Take this example with clearly unreachable dead code:

      int foo(int x) {
          return x;
          return x+x;
      }

      Any programmer would expect this to choke the compiler. However, with -Wall both GCC and clang will compile with no warnings. Look at the "goto fail" fiasco.

      C compiler writers are locked into a compiler performance war and making the community suffer. I doubt I will notice the marginal speed ups from a GCC upgrade, most performance issues are tied into software and the libraries they use. I do notice when things break and when my development time is increased by the compiler not having warnings that safe guard me from myself. I feel this is where Linus' rant is coming from.

      Fwiw, the example above results in an unreachable statement warning when the code is written in Java.

    19. Re:Oe noes! A compiler bug! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cranky is complaining about your lost time.

      One of the signposts on the way to "emotionally abusive" is name calling.

      Linus passed that sign post, actually he often lives just past it.

      The middle finger to Nvidia comes to mind, especially when Nvidia has had an excellent track record of releasing binary graphics card drivers (yes, some would want them to be open source, but at least Nvidia does more than nothing).

    20. Re:Oe noes! A compiler bug! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Linus spend time tracking down a bug that he wasn't responsible for and out of his reach to fix.

      That's why he should have been using OSS. I've been told the beauty of it is that you can just go right into the code and fix any problems that may arise.

    21. Re:Oe noes! A compiler bug! by HornWumpus · · Score: 0

      You don't know a single BSD user? Windows user?

      Liar!

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    22. Re:Oe noes! A compiler bug! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If by "excelllent track record" you mean "80% chance that updating the driver _doesn't_ kill your expensive video card", right.

    23. Re:Oe noes! A compiler bug! by Jesus_666 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Care to take a wager that it will be fixed in 4.9.1?

      You'd lose that wager. The bug was fixed in the trunk before Linus even reported it but the fix didn't make it into 4.9.1.

      For those who didn't bother reading through the LKML discussion and GCC bug reports: GCC 4.5.0 started doing bad things when a certain combination of flags was set, causing it to potentially use the stack pointer red zone even if explicitly told not to. This usually didn't lead to problems because the most programs can afford not to care about whether the red zone is used. The kernel can't; if you use the red zone in the wrong place your system crashes. This was only noticed in 4.9.0 because that version changed around some unrelated code which now caused the kernel to be compiled in such a way that the bug became relevant.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    24. Re:Oe noes! A compiler bug! by sjames · · Score: 1

      You're pretty clueless. Intel would beg to differ. No one that matters compiles high performance code on GCC, they use the Intel compiler.

      And wonder why their code is so slow on an AMD system...

      Not the only time Intel has been caught red handed playing games with the compiler. It produces fast code (usually), but you need a reference compiler around to validate your code.

      There have been no other credible compilers for Linux throughout the majority of its existence

      You're pretty clueless. Intel would beg to differ.

      So you're saying Linus should have used the Intel C compiler for Linux to develop Linux? You should probably know, Linus isn't a Timelord. He needed something he could first cross compile with, then port and GCC fit the bill. Icc didn't exist and couldn't have been used anyway. Be careful when calling others clueless.

      GCC absolutely is a solid production compiler. The bug in TFA is a serious one, but it hasn't had a lot of those. I would say GCC changed the landscape for compilers.

    25. Re:Oe noes! A compiler bug! by Bengie · · Score: 1

      GCC is the OpenSSL of compilers. I'm amazed how many people don't appreciate design and quality. This is why Linus and OpenBSD love to yell at people. They'd rather not have to deal with stupid, so they scare them away.

    26. Re:Oe noes! A compiler bug! by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      GCC is a mess that has been getting consistently worse since 3.0. It's so bad that compiling GCC with GCC, with any CPU optimizations enabled, produces a non-working compiler

      There is a very simple way to test that statement. Make a default build of gcc. Step two and three is a build of gcc by gcc. Funny thing. That always works, and has never been an issue, if it was you wouldn't have a compiler package, since any packaged version of GCC is build by the same version as shipped!!..

      DOWN VOTE PARENT - TROLL or PROFESIONAL LIAR.

    27. Re:Oe noes! A compiler bug! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      clang is more stable for sure, and has been for quite a while. Even the .0 releases... GCC became utter shit starting with the 4.5 series; it never recovered (I am very glad Ubuntu has gcc-4.4 packages).

    28. Re:Oe noes! A compiler bug! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL! Not even for a second, he'll just move on to the next speaking point, oh who am I fooling, he won't even do that.

    29. Re:Oe noes! A compiler bug! by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Hey! At least he doesn't throw chairs.

    30. Re:Oe noes! A compiler bug! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use http://www.deb-multimedia.org/ to get around the BS with ffmpeg on Debian. It's pretty terrible that I took me a bit to realize the reason "ffmpeg" couldn't concatenate AAC files was because it wasn't actually ffmpeg.

    31. Re:Oe noes! A compiler bug! by truedfx · · Score: 1

      gcc used to have an -Wunreachable-code option, but it depended too heavily on the exact optimisations enabled, so you could never tell what it would and wouldn't warn about, so that was dropped in 4.5. gcc 4.4 and earlier were capable of warning about this. clang does still have a warning for this, with a somewhat different approach so that it should be far more reliable, and the option name is the same as what gcc used to have. It is still not reliable enough to get enabled by default, though, unfortunately.

      C++ is simply a significantly more complex language than Java. This sometimes has its advantages, but it also has disadvantages, and unreachable code detection is one of the major disadvantages: there are just too many examples where the compiler can tell that code is unreachable, and optimise accordingly, but the developer won't want a warning. For a simple example, a check that a function parameter value is negative may appear in a template function, but if the parameter type is dependent, and in the only particular instantiation in the program it happens to be unsigned, then the code will clearly be unreachable, but should most likely not be removed. This is much less of a problem for Java, since Java does not have templates. It does have generics, but generics work differently, and suffer much less from this problem.

    32. Re:Oe noes! A compiler bug! by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Linus blasted the code. If that counts as "emotionally abusive" to you, you're too attached to your code and lack the objectivity necessary to be a great programmer.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    33. Re:Oe noes! A compiler bug! by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The problem isn't that every popular compiler in the world has extensions. The problem is that its users tend to think that just because it compiles with any popular compiler in the world it's portable.

      FTFY.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    34. Re:Oe noes! A compiler bug! by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      That isn't a correctness issue. That's a quality-of-code issue, and I've seen lots of compilers not have warnings for things I thought they should have warnings of.

      Does that code result in a warning in every conceivable Java compiler?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    35. Re:Oe noes! A compiler bug! by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      haha good call. I didn't realise 4.9.1 was out. Should have wageredon the next release version, not a specific number.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    36. Re:Oe noes! A compiler bug! by countach · · Score: 1

      Well he did say "throughout its existence", not merely "at the beginning when he was bootstrapping the project".

    37. Re:Oe noes! A compiler bug! by countach · · Score: 1

      Well he did say with optimisations enabled. I have no idea whether the claim is true or not, but simply pointing out that gcc is built with gcc doesn't disprove it.

    38. Re:Oe noes! A compiler bug! by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      u wot m8?

      Seriously I have no idea which part of my post you're replying to---something about your lack of quoting.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    39. Re:Oe noes! A compiler bug! by iapetus · · Score: 1

      Yes, it does. Because that's part of the Java Language Specification; any compiler that doesn't give a compile-time error in that situation isn't compliant with the JLS and thus isn't really a Java compiler.

      14.21. Unreachable Statements

      It is a compile-time error if a statement cannot be executed because it is unreachable.

      --
      ++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
      Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.
    40. Re:Oe noes! A compiler bug! by t551 · · Score: 1

      That's because that program is expressly permitted by both the C and C++ standards, and unreachable code is any many cases not indicative of a bug (especially in C++).

    41. Re:Oe noes! A compiler bug! by sjames · · Score: 1

      If it wasn't there at the start, it cannot have been there throughout it's existence. By the time icc came around, Linux was quite far along.

      Of course, I could name several more good reasons why icc would be a terrible choice of compiler for the Linux kernel and for GNU/Linux systems.

    42. Re:Oe noes! A compiler bug! by tepples · · Score: 1

      Linux can be built with other compilers with a little effort

      I don't know of anyone who actually uses a non GCC compiled kernel.

      You don't know a single BSD user? Windows user?

      Unlike GNU/Linux and Android operating systems, *BSD and Windows don't use Linux as their kernel.

    43. Re:Oe noes! A compiler bug! by HiThere · · Score: 1

      The problem affecting the kernel appears to only be enabled with a specific set of optimizations, and only to matter for a specific class of programs.

      Also, apparently the problem has actually been present for a number of iterations of the compiler, but a shift within the Linux kernel code has caused the compiler error to manifest. But the shift within the Linux kernel code was still valid C (C++?) code, so it was a compiler problem, even though it didn't affect most programs.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    44. Re:Oe noes! A compiler bug! by mark-t · · Score: 1

      You have that pretty much backwards. Without Linux, GCC wouldn't matter to anyone.

      What you probably mean is that without Linux, gcc wouldn't have mattered to anyone that matters to *YOU*.

    45. Re:Oe noes! A compiler bug! by armanox · · Score: 1

      It's not that other compilers lack non-portable extensions. It's that a lot of open source software relies on a lot of these extensions forcing you to use gcc, rather then whatever compiler may be better suited for your platform. If I was trying to compile something that depended on C11 with an old compiler (say, MIPSPro that is C99 compliant) and the open source program wouldn't build, shame on me for using such an old platform. But when the README says C99, and is supposed to be portable, and doesn't build with MIPSPro, SunStudio, or XL C because it *require* GCC, then you are no more portable then you've created a lock-in, and are no better then had you used MSVC. It would have been more portable in Java or Flash.

      As another poster said, if you are shipping a binary or proprietary code then go ahead and use whatever. But when you claim to have a 'portable' open source project that is supposed to work on any POSIX platform, then you should avoid such extensions. We have standards for a reason, and Microsoft doesn't have the monopoly on ignoring them.

      --
      I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
    46. Re:Oe noes! A compiler bug! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The success of Linux is 100% built off the success of GCC. There have been no other credible compilers for Linux throughout the majority of its existence and without GCC being bulletproof, Linux would never have been solid.

      As an interesting observation, the same is true of MSVC. Windows is built with MSVC.

    47. Re:Oe noes! A compiler bug! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you really Jörg Schilling posting under one of his many sock puppet accounts? You forgot to promote star, that funky CDDL licensed build system that only cdrkit uses, the evils of using /dev/device instead of using SCSI addressing schemes like 0,0,0 like the "properly designed" solaris uses.

      Jörg Schilling was such a piece of shit, that the world rejoiced when USB drives supplanted optical disks because the majority of users no longer has to be dependent on having to deal with that lunatic or his constant self aggrandizement anymore.

    48. Re:Oe noes! A compiler bug! by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      GCC is very standards compliant in that it will compile almost all standards compliant code correctly.

      As I said, all compilers have non portable extensions. If GCC went and DIAF as you so desire, you'd just get people writing to the non portable extensions of the other compilers. So then you'd move the hate along.

      What this translates to is that you hate the most popular compiler.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    49. Re:Oe noes! A compiler bug! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GCC is terminally broken for ever and ever and ever.

      GCC is a mess that has been getting consistently worse since 3.0.

      Why the restriction to 3.0? Do you not remember the catastrophe that was gcc 2.95? Especially since this discussion is about the Linux kernel?

      Quite bizarre...

    50. Re:Oe noes! A compiler bug! by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      But the shift within the Linux kernel code was still valid C (C++?) code, so it was a compiler problem, even though it didn't affect most programs.

      The things Linux are doing are way way outside the C spec. Nopt surprising, since the C spec doesn't have much to say about interrupt routines. It's an intersection of obscure techniques, one particular platform and obscure compiler options not all being implemented together properly.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    51. Re:Oe noes! A compiler bug! by DrXym · · Score: 1

      If it's unreachable code then it is indicative of a bug - someone has written code which they *think* does something but doesn't do anything. Now perhaps the programmer deliberately commented something out or surrounded with an "if (false)" block but even so at the very least the compiler should generate a warning and in some cases an error.

    52. Re:Oe noes! A compiler bug! by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      Not the only time Intel has been caught red handed playing games with the compiler. It produces fast code (usually), but you need a reference compiler around to validate your code.

      As someone who writes code in assembler, AMD have had a terrible habit of returning CPU flag support for opcode specifications they do not meet. At least when Intel takes AMD specifications and can't support the specification proper, they just create a new CPU flag (see AMD and Intel's history with MMX, 3DNOW and SSE for examples).

      The worst problem is where AMD fix their 'errata' issues by making opcodes try to fool/trick software into thinking it's working when it doesn't.

      So no, not really surprising someone made their compiler simply not trust AMD CPU flags and just check for 'AutthenticAMD'.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    53. Re:Oe noes! A compiler bug! by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      "Throughout the majority of its existence." The term "majority" has a meaning. If you continue to argue in such an asinine way, I will have to add you to the WOR extension rated as a double-plus Retard for deceptive malformation of the English language in debate.

    54. Re:Oe noes! A compiler bug! by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Linux isn't in C++

    55. Re:Oe noes! A compiler bug! by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      The reason that most extensions exist is that there is (or was) no way of implementing things that people want with standard C. Inline assembly is one example. All modern C compilers support it, but GCC and Microsoft's compilers use different syntax (most other compilers implement one or the other, sometimes both). Without it, you require that every time you want to use even a single instruction of platform-specific assembly code, you must write an entire function and call it.

      Atomics were another big reason for extensions. Prior to C11, if you wanted atomic operations, you needed either assembly or non-standard compiler intrinsics. Efficient vector support is another one.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    56. Re:Oe noes! A compiler bug! by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      I actually understand that licensing problems drove Debian to remove the cdrtools package. Sadly though, despite your objections to cdrtools it's amazing that it works while wodim fails miserably. Is there some reason we can't have a package to burn optical disks in the Debian repos? I'm actually able to compile this shit from source so I can have a functioning system but the vast majority of users of Ubuntu and other distros think it's impossible to burn disks on Linux without piles of coasters. Just sayin'.

    57. Re:Oe noes! A compiler bug! by sjames · · Score: 1

      And yet, when the CPU detection routines are patched out, the program runs at full speed and with no errors. Sounds like FUD to me.

    58. Re:Oe noes! A compiler bug! by sjames · · Score: 1

      Did you note that by the time there was an icc, Linux was quite far along? Add to that, a Free OS but depends on a very much not free compiler when a perfectly good Free compiler exists. Add in the limited targets for the Intel compiler and it's no deal.

      It's amusing how you are lambasting me here when you are clearly hanging on a literal definition of a word to re-interpret the clear meaning of OP in this thread.

      Suffice to say, when decisions were being made as to what compiler should be the gold standard for the Linux kernel, icc was nowhere to be seen and wouldn't have been up to the task anyway. A good thing too given the problems icc has had with non-Intel CPUs and the limited targets it supports compared to gcc.

    59. Re:Oe noes! A compiler bug! by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      And yet, when the CPU detection routines are patched out, the program runs at full speed and with no errors.

      For that processor revision with that specific microcode patch level.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    60. Re:Oe noes! A compiler bug! by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      That argument is stronger. Your argument was, "If it wasn't there at the start...." which is irrelevant when speaking about proportion.

      You substituted "100%" for "majority", which need only mean "50% plus some". Linux was released 23 years ago; ICC version 6 was released in 2002, 12 years ago. That's 11 years before ICC version 6.0 for Linux and 12 years with it; I don't have numbers for pre-6.0, but assume earlier releases came at chronologically earlier points in time. Given its rapid development in that period, the earliest likely release was 2000 or so; but 2002 is the earliest release I have data for.

      There have been no other credible compilers for Linux throughout the majority of its existence

      Except the Intel C compiler, which is inappropriate for other reasons stated (i.e. it's shitty for non-Intel architectures). Still, given the argument--a GCC bug on x86/x86-64--and the twelve years of potential tuning for icc to support high-performance situations (i.e. embedded architecture, where 16% speed-up matters), broad compiler support is reasonable. It's not like LLVM just becoming useful last year and triggering a scramble to rebase onto CLANG.

      2002 was the year of Gnome 2.0, of Linux entering the 2.5 development cycle (2.4 was state-of-the-art), of SuSE 8.0, of single-core CPUs and no AMD64. It was a long time ago, a different age, when journaling file systems were hip and new and Hans Reiser hadn't murdered Nina yet.

    61. Re:Oe noes! A compiler bug! by sjames · · Score: 1

      So, until last year, icc had not been available for the majority of Linux's lifetime. And keep in mind, it would be foolish to jump to a compiler with little track record no matter how good it looks. It could vanish tomorrow or quality could fall fast once it gets a foothold if it is a for profit venture. Given that, it wasn't a viable choice on principles for the first few years (and after because it proved to be problematic).

      It says something about longevity and continued availability that a simple google for gcc history gets a detailed page indicating 1st release, a description of the development and a roadmap for the future while history for the intel compiler disappears beyond 10 years back.

      It has only been recently that there were GOOD options that weren't gcc. The Linux kernel has several tricky bits in it where the tiny details of the compiler matter including how ambiguous bits of spec are interpreted and how bits the spec leaves to the compiler's option. So given a choice between 2 credible free compilers (clang and gcc) and a very much not free compiler with a history of cheating (the AMD debacle is not the only instance), it's not a very hard decision to make.

      Meanwhile these days in the embedded space, optimized compilation of the kernel in the embedded space isn't nearly as important as it once was. CPU performance in that space is growing by leaps and bounds such that if a general purpose kernel is appropriate at all, there is probably an embarrassment of CPU cycles available at least to the point that the differences between gcc and icc won't be a deal breaker. The target app might or might not be another story, usually not.

      That isn't to say that optimization is at all unwelcome, just that it takes 2nd priority to the compiler being stable and readily available.

      Icc (and more often, ifort) are more popular in the HPC area for the application. Usually nobody worries too much about the kernel in that space either since the big gains there are made in efficient coding at the source level rather than in compiler optimization AND most of the calls into the kernel will be for hardware bound I/O. Optimization matters more in the application where the CPU will spend the vast majority of it's time crunching data with (hopefully) good cache utilization.

    62. Re:Oe noes! A compiler bug! by sjames · · Score: 1

      For any case I have ever heard of..

      Note that some programs won't run correctly with some optimizations even on GenuineIntel.

    63. Re:Oe noes! A compiler bug! by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      For any case I have ever heard of..

      Do you even write assembler with modern opcodes or have a social group that does?

      Note that some programs won't run correctly with some optimizations even on GenuineIntel.

      Most compilers have a lot of workarounds for errata and poor implementation non-sense.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    64. Re:Oe noes! A compiler bug! by sjames · · Score: 1

      Yes, I do assembly programming when necessary. Of course, this is a compiler, not an assembler.

      But since I am speaking of a specific case of a compiler's behavior, I wouldn't actually have to be skilled in assembly code to evaluate if it did or did not run correctly with the offending function overridden in the object code.

      The optimization flags have nothing to do with CPU errata. You should know that.

      Compile with -On where n>3 and it may not behave correctly on GenuineIntel or on AMD with the crippler defanged. Oddly, it might work on AMD with the crippler in that case (or it might not). Most of that is due to the compiler taking a few liberties with floating point correctness that may or may not work out OK.

    65. Re:Oe noes! A compiler bug! by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Do you not remember the catastrophe that was gcc 2.95?

      2.95 was a very good compiler. You're thinking of 2.96, but that was all the fault of RedHat using a snapshot instead of a stable release. Can't really blame the GCC folks for that.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    66. Re:Oe noes! A compiler bug! by evilviper · · Score: 1

      You've decided to throw logic and facts to the wind and just go off on an I-hate-RMS-so-I-hate-GCC-by-proxy rant.

      Funny you say that, just after dismissing all the facts I mentioned.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    67. Re:Oe noes! A compiler bug! by armanox · · Score: 1

      Actually what it translates to is I hate people writing non-portable code. What was rule 4 of the UNIX philosophy again?

      GCC is much like IE6, in my opinion.

      --
      I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
    68. Re:Oe noes! A compiler bug! by recharged95 · · Score: 1

      Bingo, if my large project (kernel) relied on something and it broke, I'd be furious too from a technical standpoint, but from a team, dev-to-dev standpoint, if the GCC folks knew of a bug--it's just that--fix it as team.

      No different on the rainy day of your wedding--everyone still works together to get it done and no hard feelings.

      Just another emotional day at the office.

    69. Re:Oe noes! A compiler bug! by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      The optimization flags have nothing to do with CPU errata. You should know that.

      I'm aware.

      Most of that is due to the compiler taking a few liberties with floating point correctness that may or may not work out OK.

      True.

      From memory (and this is a few years ago). I do recall using the Intel compiler, to generate bits of binaries to make use of some pretty hard-core optimizations where a threaded application which uses SMID instructions could be used to access overlapping registers (compliant with the specification) and do simultaneous processing off those registers. It ran perfectly on Intel and Transmeta processors at the time, not so much when it came to AMD though.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    70. Re:Oe noes! A compiler bug! by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Well, the statement was made 2 days ago, so "last year" doesn't count. Until last year, your girlfriend was single, so having sex with her last night was okay, right?

    71. Re:Oe noes! A compiler bug! by sjames · · Score: 1

      If being available the majority of the time is a criterion for needing to use it to compile the kernel, that provides a pretty small window between being premature and overdue and a lot of work to do in that second.

    72. Re:Oe noes! A compiler bug! by truedfx · · Score: 1

      You're right, I should have been paying more attention. The warning was (GCC) and is (clang) common to their C and their C++ modes, though, so it doesn't change much.

    73. Re:Oe noes! A compiler bug! by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      It's just that saying C++ is more complex than Java has little bearing on C. C++ is an immensely complex language: loading and using C++ programs is slow. The overhead of using C++ is immense. It's incredible. Name mangling causes tons of comparisons in initialization and during lazy look-up; while classes require constant indirect look-ups through the virtual method table as a matter of course.

      In C, you have none of that. memcpy() is just memcpy(), and it's in the PLT. A call to memcpy() doesn't invoke a look-up through the virtual method table to determine which pointer to use for a call %register,$pointer; it's just stuffed into the PLT, and a call to it causes a hard-coded call %register,$offset.

      There are no template functions in C because of no name mangling.

    74. Re:Oe noes! A compiler bug! by sjames · · Score: 1

      Given the limited information, it's hard for me to speculate, but if you were using MMX it's quite likely the compiler went into gray areas of the spec when optimizing.

      In any event, that is not a case of you defanging the AMD crippler and then b ad things happen.

      Recognizing that courts don't always get tech matters right, multiple courts and regulatory bodies have found that Intel implemented the crippler as an illeg al business strategic move rather than for technical reasons and have ordered th em to stop it.

      More recently, icc was caught detecting that it was compiling a benchmark and generating code that skipped some of the computation if it detected an Intel CP U. It seems to be part of a pattern of behavior.

      Given that, I'd say the preponderance suggests the intel compiler is a poor c hoice of compiler unless you intend to use it only on GenuineIntel AND you valid ate the results by running an intel compiler version against a non-intel compile d binary and make sure the results match.

    75. Re:Oe noes! A compiler bug! by truedfx · · Score: 1

      True, and making a useful -Wunreachable-code option for C is easier than for C++, but it's still significantly more difficult than for Java. For one thing, C has no abnormal returns, it has regular function calls that cause an abnormal return as a side effect, and in some cases, even in well-written C code, it is difficult for the compiler to statically determine whether those functions are called. For another, C has thousands (probably even more) of programs that have already been written without taking the not-yet-existing warnings into account, and users expect a new version of the compiler to not give too many bogus warnings. In contrast, Java was able to emit a warning right from the start, and programs have been modified to take the warning into account, to re-work the code if the compiler warns, even if the warning is not correct (logically speaking; it may still be correct based on the spec).

    76. Re:Oe noes! A compiler bug! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      God damn the British are fucking stupid and ugly. Let me help you out here, genius.

      I don't know of anyone who actually uses a non GCC compiled kernel.

      Idiotic troll is an idiot.

  11. Re:Surprise, surprise... by amiga3D · · Score: 1, Insightful

    He doesn't complain, he blows the fuck up.

  12. The reddit thread... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    ...which has been going a lot longer, has good discussion. The problem occurs when an uncommon combination of flags is selected in specific versions. Most people don't have to worry about this too much.

    1. Re:The reddit thread... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      I don't believe it, reddit is full of grammarian twits.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    2. Re:The reddit thread... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  13. Re:Surprise, surprise... by PlusFiveTroll · · Score: 3, Funny

    I don't 'like' lima beans, that doesn't mean there is anything wrong with them. In this case your lima beans have been switched out with castor beans and you're dying. Pretty big difference.

  14. This could be good... by freeze128 · · Score: 1

    Linus developed the linux kernel, and it's obviously very important to him. He didn't like the version control system that he was using so he invented a better one (GIT). Perhaps this will encourage him to create a better, less "retarded" compiler.

    1. Re:This could be good... by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      If he built gcc like git, each compiler would have it's own local language that other compilers could mix and match with the languages from other gccs.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    2. Re:This could be good... by BitZtream · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Perhaps this will encourage him to create a better, less "retarded" compiler.

      Or, like everyone else, he'll just switch to clang/llvm. GCCs days are numbered. RMS's political agenda has ensured its demise. It'll be a slow painful death, but its a death none the less.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    3. Re: This could be good... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He used to call sparse ( https://sparse.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Main_Page ) a compiler. But the idea was to get good compiler warnings and not optimized code.

    4. Re:This could be good... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      A compiler that is as well-designed and useable as Linux and Git? It already exists

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  15. What is rbp anyway? by jones_supa · · Score: 1

    Can you explain what is the %rbp, and why are its offsets negative? If I set values 1, 2, 3, 4 to a bunch of variables, I get this assembly code:

    movl $1, -4(%rbp)
    movl $2, -8(%rbp)
    movl $3, -12(%rbp)
    movl $4, -16(%rbp)

    1. Re: What is rbp anyway? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      rbp is a stack pointer it is negative because it grows down.

    2. Re:What is rbp anyway? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      at&t syntax assembler
      64bit base pointer, i'm sure you're a troll
      and the negative values on there represent stack variables
      as + values from rbp [assuming a correct stack frame] would be +(%rbp)

      troll?

    3. Re:What is rbp anyway? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      at&t syntax intel assembler*

    4. Re:What is rbp anyway? by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      Troll, troll, yeah, I'm so troll...

    5. Re: What is rbp anyway? by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      Nice article, that should explain a bunch of things to me.

    6. Re:What is rbp anyway? by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      RBP is the 64-bit version of the X86 BP register. It is used to point to the beginning of the stack frame. Are those 'variables' function arguments?

      It is just fetching values directly behind the end of the stack frame.

    7. Re:What is rbp anyway? by profplump · · Score: 3, Informative

      %rpb is the base pointer. The offset is negative because the local variables live below the base pointer (being in-scope only after the base pointer is moved to the current function); -X(%rbp) points to a local variable.

      http://stackoverflow.com/quest...

    8. Re:What is rbp anyway? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GEE thanks for removing my two posts whoever
      btw this is at&t syntax NOT intel SO
      movl $1 -4(%rbp) is not FETCHING
      it's moving those constants into 'local' storage.

      you have the direction backwards, it is opposite of c

    9. Re:What is rbp anyway? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's... not... fetching... stoopid...

      movl $1, -4(rbp) ; at&t 64bit
      ~=
      mov [ebp-4], long 1 ; intel 32bit

      and the other link was better.

  16. Why the asterisk? by Stormwatch · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you want to say shit, say shit. We're all grown-ups here.

    1. Re:Why the asterisk? by BitZtream · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yea, my first thought when I read that was 'How retarded is timothy to think that implying a word without using the actual word is any different'. Its stupid. Its like saying 'the n word'. We all know EXACTLY what you mean, you're just too chicken shit to actually say it.

      Oh, and he had to tell us that Linus didn't use the asterisks!

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    2. Re:Why the asterisk? by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      On some internet connections with restrictive filters, pages containing "dirty words" are automatically blocked. Happens to me every now and then when I'm surfing at work, even on innocent sites. I did get them to whitelist Slashdot, though. Other people might not be so lucky.

    3. Re:Why the asterisk? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm surprised their filter doesn't block "linus" then.

    4. Re:Why the asterisk? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Irrelevant. Someone would use normal language in the first post anyhow.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    5. Re:Why the asterisk? by NotInHere · · Score: 2

      And, Linus actually used asterisks, just placed another way:

      Ok, so I'm looking at the code generation and your compiler is pure
      and utter *shit*.

    6. Re:Why the asterisk? by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      If you want to say shit, say shit. We're all grown-ups here.

      We are? Oh yeah, that age screening that none of us went through to use this site.

      Personally, I don't think that life is better with such widespread "refreshing" use of profanity. Just coarser.

      Anyway, even if you like profanity, how can it remain profane if everyone uses it? :) It loses force, while remaining coarse. Lose lose.

    7. Re:Why the asterisk? by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 3

      We're all grown-ups here.

      On /.? Oh you mean age-wise...

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    8. Re:Why the asterisk? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who you calling chicken shit, chicken shit? You can't even say negro without calling it 'the n word', it is only the word for black in the hispanic languages.

    9. Re:Why the asterisk? by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      This is a minor nit, but sh*t without the asterisk is really sht, not shit. ;)

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  17. Re:Surprise, surprise... by QuietLagoon · · Score: 2

    I don't 'like' lima beans, that doesn't mean there is anything wrong with them. In this case your lima beans have been switched out with castor beans and you're dying. Pretty big difference.

    It's a compiler bug, for Pete's sake, not the end of the world.

    .
    Revert to a known working version of the compiler, submit a bug report and move on. Why the temper tantrums? What is with all the drama?

  18. Linux, a miracle by demon+driver · · Score: 1, Troll

    I keep wondering how Linux could become as good as it is, with a coordinator being a person like Torvalds. How many capable developers would put up with a boss like that in their day job? Yet they do working for Torvalds in their spare time...

    1. Re:Linux, a miracle by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      And how could Apple become as good as it is? Hmmm...

    2. Re:Linux, a miracle by AmazingRuss · · Score: 1

      All the ones that aren't being yelled at love watching him yell at somebody else.

    3. Re:Linux, a miracle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're quite a moron, probably washing toilets at McDonalds.
      Hard things are obtained by effort and this effort is leaving its marks on people's behaviour.
      You cannot be nice when your product(Linux) which runs on m(b)illions equipments may end in
      failure because of other people mistakes.

      Btw , all other people working on kernel are thankfull to Torvalds for his continous effort.
      Look on Linux kernel mailing list , Torvalds was the only one who figured out the problem
      (ie that panic in load_balance() is a gcc problem ).

    4. Re:Linux, a miracle by hackus · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      The reason why LINUX is as good as it is, because people who are involved with LINUX are passionate about great software. The reason why LINUX attracts people who are passionate about good software and world class engineering is because you can actually do something about these sorts of errors.

      With proprietary software like Windows, that passion is crushed because you can never ever fix these sorts of things, without going to jail in the f*cking fascist corporate state.

      Tolerance is lower, because YOU as a software developer have EPIC amounts of control over the software stack. You are suppose to test these things before deployment. On Windows or some other piece of shit operating system with no source code this sort of thing is tolerated much more frequently because you do not have that level of control and more importantly: Defects in proprietary software are thought of as a REVENUE STREAM, not as a PIECE OF SHIT SOFTWARE.

      AS A RESULT OF THAT LOSS OF CONTROL THE SOFTWARE QUALITY EXPECTATIONS ARE VASTY REDUCED IN PROPRIETARY SOFTWARE SHIT.

      Hence Windows shit, vs LINUX EPIC engineering.

      That EPIC engineering runs the fastest machines, the largest computers, the smallest computers do you know why?

      The open source community have passionate people who don't put up with BULLSHIT BOSSES. THE KIND YOU LIKE TO HAVE AROUND AT WORK THINKING ABOUT NEXT QUARTERS NUMBERS INSTEAD OF WHY HIS CUSTOMER STAYED UP LAST NIGHT TILL 2AM IN THE MORNING ON A TECHNICAL SUPPORT LINE TRYING TO RESTORE THEIR SYSTEMS.

      I figure Windows shit owes me like 5 years of sleep as a IT Monkey going on 25 years in the industry. I always think, why didn't someone yell at the guy like LINUS who wrote this shit, to fix it?

      Keep yelling LINUS!!

      --
      Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
    5. Re:Linux, a miracle by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because every truly competent developer agrrees with him. We all hate incompetence, and Linus speaks for us all when he lays in to some incompetent for sullying the gene pool of software developers everywhere. Linus' approach has a truly wonderful effect. The incompetent people run away crying "Ohh Noze! He was mean to me! Doesn't he know that I have a right to be incompetent and still be treated with kid gloves??!!!". The competent people say "Thank you Linus for saying what we all wanted to say!" and continue to develop. I have no idea if the effect of his tirades is intentional, but make no mistake about it. It is not merely acceptable. It is ideal.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    6. Re:Linux, a miracle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a good point.

    7. Re:Linux, a miracle by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Linus guards the kernel. User space is generally awful.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    8. Re:Linux, a miracle by jones_supa · · Score: 0

      The problem with Linux and OSS in general is that these kind of weird problems can pop up any time and are partly the responsibility of the general public to test and report. With Windows and Mac, the extensive quality assurance catches a lot of this stuff and I do not have to worry about it in the first place. I am not saying that even commercial OSs are perfect, but they are much more smooth sailing. I still share your argument that with closed software, it is almost impossible to reach the engineers if there is a problem.

    9. Re:Linux, a miracle by nyet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because if you aren't incompetent, you won't get yelled at.

      Unlike a corporate structure, where you don't get yelled if you play the game right.

      If you are incompetent, please don't develop linux kernel code. Go work for a corporation.You'll find you're a better fit, and if you play your cards right, you won't get yelled at no matter how bad you are at your job.

    10. Re:Linux, a miracle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ha ha ha, oh wow! Man, you're good, you should get your own gig.

      Seriously, "quality assurance" in Windows that "catches a lot of this stuff" that actually is fucking dragged on from Windows XP and Office 2003 era until it may be gets fixed a decade later. Stuff like arbitrary code execution via TIFF images or embedded icons in .PIFs and .EXEs and privilege escalation by displaying a specific polygon.

      Do tell me more about "extensive quality assurance".

    11. Re:Linux, a miracle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many capable developers would put up with a boss like that in their day job?

      I'd love a boss who could and would call bullshit when he sees a pile of it. But those are few and far between. Most bosses either don't know shit when they see it, or they don't think the smell matters and do not raise hell. Instead, they often raise hell for irrelevant issues.

      It's precisely the capable developers who can and often want to put up with a boss like that. Keeps out the riff-raff, too.

    12. Re:Linux, a miracle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Windows was designed as a single user system while Unix was designed as a multi-user system. That right there is the single largest different between Window and Linux. Windows has had issues with it for decades. That and their backwards compatibility.

    13. Re:Linux, a miracle by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Linus doesn't generally 'yell' at competent, talented developers.

      Thats where you're confused.

      Linus yells after someone repeatedly argues with him that they aren't wrong or that its his fault and he has proven otherwise, then they come back and do it again.

      Linus is generally very easy to convince he's wrong ... when he's wrong and he'll acknowledge it quickly. He expects the same from everyone else. When you repeatedly ignore his proof that you are incorrect he reacts this way.

      Great things in this world aren't built by people who are more concerned with being politically correct than doing the right thing, sorry to burst your bubble.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    14. Re:Linux, a miracle by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      I keep wondering how Linux could become as good as it is, with a coordinator being a person like Torvalds

      Well you must have no much management experience, or at least not the management of a team you never meet in person, you don't choose, and which basically has no working obligation. The Linux kernel is one of the best (the best?) thing that happened for the OS community.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    15. Re:Linux, a miracle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because every truly competent developer agrrees with him

      Based on what? Something you pulled out of your own ass?

    16. Re:Linux, a miracle by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      No you are right. A lot of competent people embrace incompetence. Indeed, we strive or it! We hope to acheive it someday!

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  19. Re:Surprise, surprise... by jones_supa · · Score: 1

    These days I interpret Linus' "meltdowns" just as some funny nerd rage. He uses that technique to strongly underline the importance of his point, it's never real anger. Often there's a dash of humor in the mix, such as in this case the comment "that compiler shouldn't have been allowed to graduate from kindergarten".

  20. Re:Great. Now the sloth community... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    ^^^ Self-hating sloth ^^^

  21. Re:Surprise, surprise... by BitZtream · · Score: 1

    And every time he does ... he's right to do so.

    A meltdown is when some candy ass can't deal with reality and blows up emotionally without provocation or justification.

    When Linus blows up, he's pretty much always right and its pretty much always after the other guy(s) repeatedly denied being wrong or acted like an asshole who couldn't possibly be wrong.

    When has anyone seen Linus blow up on someone who didn't actually deserve it?

    GCC deserves to die.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  22. Compiler doesn't change the license ... by perpenso · · Score: 5, Informative

    Debian people should probably downgrate their shiny new compiler.

    Or upgrade to llvm. Being [able] to compile with either gcc or llvm would be a nice option.

    How could you _upgrade_ from GPLv3 to BSD? Sounds like the reverse.

    Compiling with a BSD licensed compiler does not change the license of the software being compiled. Linux would remain gpl regardless of whether gcc or llvm is used.

    1. Re:Compiler doesn't change the license ... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      You make that sound like a bad thing.

      The problem is Linux can't upgrade to BSD, but you can...

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    2. Re:Compiler doesn't change the license ... by armanox · · Score: 0

      The main problem is that Linus did not take copyright assignments, so it's practially impossible now to relicense the Linux kernel or upgrade it to GPLv3.

      Therefore, always remember to use "GPLv3 or later" when you release software. The "or later" is really important.

      You make it sound like we care about GPLv3. Sorry, I'll stick to licenses like the BSD ones when I can.

      --
      I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
    3. Re:Compiler doesn't change the license ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If he did, and tried to change the license to GPLv3 linux would be forked to hell.

    4. Re:Compiler doesn't change the license ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      A lot of people care about GPLv3, it's the current version of what is essentially regarded as the default free software license.

    5. Re:Compiler doesn't change the license ... by HornWumpus · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      The default free software license remains BSD. The less free license is GPL. The still less free version is GPLv3.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    6. Re:Compiler doesn't change the license ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A lot of people care about GPLv3,

      And a lot of people don't.

      it's the current version of what is essentially regarded as the default free software license.

      Only by deluded people.

    7. Re:Compiler doesn't change the license ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, with all the brouhaha that has been historically about BSD people taking GPL code and trying to make it different enough so it would be unrecognizable as a the derivative it is, would rather imply the situation actually being the reversed from your deluded views..

    8. Re:Compiler doesn't change the license ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize that keeping Linux off of GPL 3 was done intentionally, right? The amount of private corporation money that goes into developing it, all based off the linking loop hole in GPL 2 is the entire reason Linux is as successful as it is. If it were migrated to GPL 3, within a month 90% of the development will have stopped on the official branch. GPL 3 is toxic from a business prospective, and like it or not, Linux lives or dies by privately held companies.

    9. Re:Compiler doesn't change the license ... by SharpFang · · Score: 2

      You're calling 'more liberal' 'more free'.
      Doesn't work like that. How free is OS X (based upon BSD-licensed software)?

      BSD is very permissive - to the point of permitting software being based on it ceasing to be free.

      GCC is more restrictive, assuring both the license and the source spreads "virally" with the program, so the program never ceases to be free.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    10. Re:Compiler doesn't change the license ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      in order to protect your freedoms were are restricting your freedoms.

    11. Re:Compiler doesn't change the license ... by Wootery · · Score: 1

      On GitHub at least, apparently copycenter licences are indeed by far the most popular.

    12. Re:Compiler doesn't change the license ... by sillybilly · · Score: 1

      Or how about public domain? Microsoft and Apple would love to see public domain stuff they can pimp up in their stuff and sell it to everybody in the modified version. BSD is public-domain like, but why not call it public domain? I love public domain. That's how information - gossip, technology - is in a village, no cock blocks. It's like the next time someone offers me a "standard" intellectual property agreement disguised as a confidentiality agreement when I want to work as a free minded laborer on a shop floor, I'm walking off the job, unless they agree the stuff I think up is public domain, and they can't block me from thinking it, talking it or doing it somewhere else later. It means they can also do anything they want with it, and this would relate to what I come up with, not what they already claim as theirs. As I think that's what they worry about, you come up with something, and expect the world to be compensated for it as your intellectual property. Naw dawg, you can't shove an intellectual property down my throat with that excuse, worrying that I might claim and abuse the invention rights to something, so you confiscate them all, and stop me from thinking it again, because now these thoughts, these methods and technologies, these sequences of hand motions step 1 step 2 step 3, are yours. Intellectually speaking. I agreed and signed the rights over to them. Are you kidding me? How about we agree that nobody has it and we both have it at the same time? It's public domain, from the instant it was created. Do whatever the fuck you wanna do, with it, and I'll do whatever the fuck I wanna do? Are we cool on that? Freedom of mind is very important to me. I hate intellectual property agreements shoved down my throat, which is why I'll never be happy in a standard corporate world, no matter what the pay. Freedom of mind is very important to me, and it should be to everyone else.

    13. Re:Compiler doesn't change the license ... by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      Yes. We are restricting your freedom to restrict freedoms of others.
      In particular, we are imposing a very small restriction, which prevents you from imposing arbitrarily large restrictions on others.

      Are you going to cry foul that the government is restricting your freedom to force people into slavery?

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    14. Re:Compiler doesn't change the license ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, no. In order to be fair to everyone, we're not giving you the store - we're letting you share it.

    15. Re:Compiler doesn't change the license ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > in order to protect your freedoms were are restricting your freedoms.

      Wrong. GPL does not restrict the freedoms you're talking about. Copyright law does. GPL grants you limited conditional rights that copyright law would otherwise restrict.

  23. Re:Surprise, surprise... by Sun · · Score: 0

    Not that discussion again....

    Linus blowing up at Andrew Tridgdell for "reverse engineering" the bitkeeper protocol comes to mind.

    I will agree that this time around, the complaints are grounded. It does, indeed, seem like a compiler bug. Whether that is a reason to be so critical of gcc 4.9.0, I don't know. It's obvious a serious problem for the kernel.

    Shachar

  24. Already fixed. by Bananenrepublik · · Score: 4, Informative

    ... and they already fixed the bug two weeks ago, see the bug report

    1. Re:Already fixed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And that is the end of it for GCC team while Linus will have to answer his kernel crashing for years to come because someone used incompatible version of GCC. That's why he is so mad about this, because it requires workaround on kernel code for the long term as well as short term warnings so that people don't use certain GCC versions to compile the kernel.

    2. Re:Already fixed. by SharpFang · · Score: 3, Informative

      ...in 4.8.3. Then it resurfaced in 4.9.0 and .1

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    3. Re:Already fixed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure 4.8.3 is newer than 4.9.1. It's a different branch, you know.

  25. Re:Surprise, surprise... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Exactly this. Linus has done far more than the no talent N00bs here on slashdot that whine every time. Those people wish they could do 1/10th what he does.

    And honestly, I agree with Linus, most of the time when crap goes sideways it's because of very stupid things and people need to be called stupid to their face when thy do something stupid.

    GCC 4.9.0 is a steaming pile of crap, and they know they should have never released it.

  26. I know you're trying to be funny, but... by SuperBanana · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...the people who deserve the apology are the people who were subject to an abusive tirade.

    You can point out someone made a mistake. There's no obligation to be "nice" when doing so. There is an obligation to not be abusive, which is what Linus repeatedly does. Abuse includes mockery, ridicule, name calling, etc.

    He's being a bully, pure and simple - using his popularity to shove around others. That should not be tolerated, full stop.

    1. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by HornWumpus · · Score: 5, Funny

      This is abuse, arguments are in the next article.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    2. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Insightful

      His manner is coarse, but you must admit that he's gotten the job done. Linux advances on schedule, patches get incorporated, code gets tested, and all proceeds smoothly.

    3. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by mark_reh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I disagree. Political correctness of the 90s has led to today's "rule" that all opinions are valid and of equal value when anyone with a functional brain knows they are not. Linus is merely saying what ought to be said. Maybe a little public ridicule will be the motivating force to ensure that this sort of thing doesn't happen again.

      Would you prefer we hand the developers an award for "participation"?

    4. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      and you know what? sometimes that what it takes to get things done. If you dont like it? stop doing it! You are working for *FREE*, you are right, you DONT have to take the abuse if you dont want. no one is holding a gun to anyones head over it.

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    5. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "There is an obligation to not be abusive, which is what Linus repeatedly does. "

      If GCC 4.9.0 is supposed to be a stale release and it doesn't work, why can't Linus call it shit?

    6. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And Mussolini made the trains run on time?

      --
      http://www.rootstrikers.org/
    7. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 1

      So you're saying that the trains run on time?

    8. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by SuperBanana · · Score: 1, Insightful

      His manner is coarse

      It's not "coarse", it's abusive. Namecalling, mocking, ridicule, hyperbole. That's abuse.

      you must admit that he's gotten the job done. Linux advances on schedule, patches get incorporated, code gets tested, and all proceeds smoothly.

      I sacrificed a chicken yesterday and successfully committed code. You must admit that the ritualistic sacrifice got the job done.

      ("Getting the job done" does not, and has never required being abusive to others. Getting the job done while being abusive is not proof that being abusive is required or even was part of, "getting the job done.")

    9. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by epyT-R · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The only way to cajole passive aggressives into taking action is to shame them publicly. That's why they whine like little babies and play the victim role. Unfortunately, passive aggressive dynamics run so much of society nowadays that they've been codified into law as 'rights', and the bluntness/truth that contradicts them, 'hate crimes.'

      A well placed 'Fuck you!' can save years and years of mountainous, expensive political tugs of war.

    10. Re: I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The compiler will be used to build code for millions of devices and apps over the course of its lifetime. Maybe he's being just as negative as he needs to be.

      Nobody died, only egos are damaged - some would argue justifiably so - and the news publicizes the status of 4.9.0 rather effectively. Job done.

      Snowflakes need not apply, apparently.

    11. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nobody cares what code you committed. Butthurt v. 2.1 was working fine before your 'improvements.' Just cut out the 'abusive' crap. You sound like some sort of social worker.

    12. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...the people who deserve the apology are the people who were subject to an abusive tirade.

      You can point out someone made a mistake. There's no obligation to be "nice" when doing so. There is an obligation to not be abusive, which is what Linus repeatedly does. Abuse includes mockery, ridicule, name calling, etc.

      He's being a bully, pure and simple - using his popularity to shove around others. That should not be tolerated, full stop.

      Agreed, and glaring compiler errors should not be tolerated either. Linus gets slack because: 1., He's really smart, 2., He's rarely wrong when he finds an error, 3. He's still the one person that floats the Linux kernel to all the world and is under a constant amount of stress and pressure. He does need to start proofreading stuff and editing for assholishness before hitting any send buttons, but who hasn't been guilty of the overworked, under slept, under duress tirade email when something someone else made breaks when you need it most, or in the most inane way? Yet he without sin cast the first stone...

    13. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 0, Troll

      I guess you'd better shave that hair off your feet, sharpen all your pencils, and fork the kernel, then.

    14. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That should have been "Let" not "Yet".

    15. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by tero · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Did you actually read the thread?
      You know, where Linus tracks down the thing and collaborates very professionally with other devs?

      Yes, he uses harsh language at times, but who the fuck doesn't. He does not work in enterprise environment, it's his own mailinglist.

    16. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by sumdumass · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But you couldn't ignore Mussolini and move on if you did not like his leadership. Here you can.

    17. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by mspohr · · Score: 1

      I thought the rant was a very creative use of language.
      I'd give him an A+ in creative writing.
      If I was the target of the rant, I might be a bit upset but would probably admit that I deserved it.
      He could have said something like, "Nice code, Johnny, but that part in the middle will need some adjustment (but you're really a fine person deep inside)."

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    18. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by johnjaydk · · Score: 5, Informative

      And Mussolini made the trains run on time?

      Actually, he didn't. That myth have been repeatedly busted my historians.

      --
      TCAP-Abort
    19. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Please point me to the fine print that requires me to treat incompetent people who waste my time and cause others to falsely accuse me of creating code that crashes their computer in any other manner. As far as I am concerened, Linus was far too nice.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    20. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by brianerst · · Score: 5, Informative

      To be fair, the tirade occurred on the Linux Kernel mailing list and was intra-kernel team bitching. This wasn't directed at the gcc devs personally - he was telling another kernel dev that the output of from his version of gcc was crap. It's a snapshot of a mailing list conversation, not an official statement.

      His actual bug report was professional and courteous. He thanked the gcc devs for quickly coming up with a fix.

    21. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by jovius · · Score: 1

      What's professionalism? A job done without emotions, or having the emotions restricted? In the end it wouldn't much differ from working with robots. Or are the emotions a threat because authority figure's emotions can be a sign of a weakness, or do we subconsciously fancy emotionless and calculative psychopaths, for us to let go of the control to somebody else?

      There in the very thread he does all he can to help solve the issue and learn more about it. A challenge: find out the Linus expletive and outburst frequency per year.

    22. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by musth · · Score: 1

      So we call him by the first name when we want to humanize him, make him sound like next-door regular folk, downplay his abusiveness. Right?

    23. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So... Is there an equivalent of Godwin's Law for Mussolini?

    24. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go wash the sand out of your vagina and man the fuck up. Even if you're a woman, Get the fuck out of my industry.

    25. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Bengie · · Score: 2

      Linus only goes off the rails like this for nothing but complete and utter unforgivable incompetence. They deserve exactly what he said. He calls it like it is, and I respect him for that. No beating around the bush when people are doing the most horrible of "mistakes".

    26. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your comment should not be tolerated, full stop. Why? Because I've arbitrarily decided that it's objectively bad.

      I don't mind Linus's abuse. Speak for yourself.

    27. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps you don't think this sort of thing (and much worse) doesn't take place in the corporate world. That a Jobs or a Ballmer (or a Mulally, for that matter) never reached their limit and smacked an underling down. If so, then I would conclude that you've never worked in the corporate world. I've seen people threatened not only with their pride but also their jobs over less, and I suspect that most anyone who has ever worked in the real world at almost any level has as well. The big difference is that what happens in a conference room or corner office is not as easy to see as what's written to an openly-available mailing list.

    28. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I heard they could run with condiments?!

    29. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, Mussolini made the trains run on thyme.

    30. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by jeIIomizer · · Score: 1

      There is simply no excuse to make a comment like yours. Why? Because I've decided that it's bad. And it's also not professional at all, which isn't a 100% subjective term in the least.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    31. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm shocked as fuck that you got to say that without being modded to tell. I mentioned in a post a couple of years back that a major upgrade to Ubuntu fucked the stylus on my HP TC 1100 and you would have sworn to that I proclaimed that God is dead to the inquisition. It certainly soured my experience with "the community" to the point I drifted mostly away from Linux. I still have an old ThinkPad running Linux and a RasPi but I'm not investing any more real time into it. Fuck 'em.

    32. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Spazmania · · Score: 2

      He's being a bully, pure and simple

      Sticks and stones. I'd rather face honest anger than than a disingenuous veneer of reasonableness. And this isn't the first (or second or third) time in the last couple years GCC has been found to have optimized something into wrong code.

      --
      Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
    33. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The fact that you don't know what does and does not constitute the kernel is a tribute to your cluelessness. Extra points for not knowing that Linus always openly acknowleges that he doesn't do most of the work but still gets most of the credit. Linus is actually a very humble guy. He just doesn't suffer fools well, which explains your butthurt completely, of course.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    34. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was with you into you characterized 'hate crimes' as noble truths. No. I support Linus, his words tend to be exaggerated for clickbait for those for and against FOSS, but comparing telling someone they fucked up and to stop shifting responsibility, to violent assault on a person because of their race/sexual orientation is really fucked up.

    35. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Except in this case there's no signs that anyone was being particularly reckless, lazy or disregarding the rules, it was a fairly complex interaction between debug settings, ASM optimizations and dependency management. This is more like when the Space Shuttle blew up and nobody cares about the 9999 parts that didn't fail because the O-ring did and as a result it's now small chunks of scrap metal with dead astronauts. You don't get points for effort, style or the parts that work it's the end result that counts and in this case GCC poops on the floor because the final output is shit.

      I think it's a good attitude for a kernel manager, because when he gets shit code from driver or subsystem maintainers that goes into a release kernel and starts corrupting data and throwing panics the shit is going to land on him. You can't just shuffle that responsibility downwards and say no, the kernel is 99% fine but that driver is crap because as far as the end users are concerned the kernel is crap and the internal bickering about whose fault that is doesn't matter one bit to them. It's your project and your job to get it fixed. And that might require some harsh words about the O-ring and the people who made it, because it's making them all look bad which is totally unfair to everybody else.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    36. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by medv4380 · · Score: 2

      How else do you make the trains run on time if not by spreading a rumor that they are actually on time?

    37. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by DarkOx · · Score: 2

      I agree the major distributions have botched almost all of those. Can you site any MAJOR bugs in release ( ie even numbered minor version kernels without -rc etc on the end of them) that issues?

      I can't recall any. Like any large complex software project Linux has had its share of bugs but I have been using it in various capacities for 15 years and I can't recall anything in a non-development release that made me go "Good God how did that get past QA".

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    38. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In fairness, he was abusive before he was popular. Linus hasn't changed.

    39. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, Linus is an asshole. Nothing new there.

    40. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by oji-sama · · Score: 5, Informative

      His manner is coarse

      It's not "coarse", it's abusive. Namecalling, mocking, ridicule, hyperbole. That's abuse.

      If you read the message, you may have noticed that he called the code shit, not any person coding it. Same with all other colorful language. I wouldn't get offended.

      --
      It is what it is.
    41. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Even god almighty couldn't make Italian transit work, Mussolini never stood a chance.

    42. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      Il Duce was a patriot - he would have made them run on oregano

    43. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not "coarse", it's abusive. Namecalling, mocking, ridicule, hyperbole. That's abuse.

      none of which was aimed even remotely in the direction of gcc developers personally, but rather to the compiler version one of linus' own peers was using. and using language style the recipient and the mailing list (his mailing list, btw, not gcc's) are likely accustomed to whenever linus runs into a really stupid issue that is none of theirs' fault.

      have you just learned to read recently? were you dropped on your head into a pile of sloth droppings as an infant? fail the sat critical reading exam? i know it must be embarrassing, but you'll get better over time, maybe. now *those* were targeted at you directly, not your keyboard's output itself. see the difference?

    44. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Here's how a REAL professional behaves. The CEO of Boeing told analysis that he makes his employees "cower", and actually thought that would be a funny joke. Everyone knew that Steve Jobs was something of an asshole. So is Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates. A lot of the most famous and effective military leaders were real sons of bitches as well. Patton comes to mind, as does his long-time rival, Monty. Norman Schwarzkopf was known for his fiery temper, which gave him the nickname "Stormin' Norman".

      Most professional communities are rather pragmatic, and ultimately rewards *success* above all else, unless you cross over a very big line, like doing something illegal, or embarrassing your company to such a degree that it has a negative effect on business (e.g. Patton slapping a soldier). There may something about those personality types that are driven to succeed. It's not universal, of course. Pete Carrol, the head coach of last year's Superbowl winning Seattle Seahawks, is known for being a very nice and laid-back guy, and doesn't fit the typical mode of the "screamer" type coaches we've all seen.

      Look, I'm not going to defend Torvold's rants. I think they're childish as well, but let's not kid ourselves. These sort of rants and worse happen all the time in "professional" environments. Would it be great if people were universally nicer to each other? Sure. But when getting a job done, is being nice or being competent more important?

      At least he hasn't tossed any chairs around that we know of.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    45. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      Actually it just proves how valuable people think he is. Look at the rest of our society. We allow all kinds of people who are of some particular talent: athletics, musicians, actors, politicians, certain academics, and others get away with things the rest of us would surely be fired over and quite possibly prosecuted and imprisoned.

      I am not say its a good thing, but our society in general allows individuals who attain a certain celebrity status a degree of entitled behavior and allowances are made when they break the 'rules' the rest of us live by. The more actual talent and the less 'replaceable' they are the more outrageous we let them behave. Some of them over step and hilarity ensues and others remain decent people and don't take advantage of their position at all.

      Linus however is no different in this regard. He does it because he CAN get away with it. The rest of us ARE WILLING to put up with it; that has been proven over and over again. He knows how far he can go and does not go farther.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    46. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      If you'd actually read the linked mailing list post (or even just read the quotes of it in the summary) you'd see that none of the abusive comments are aimed at people, they're aimed at the code. He calls the code a bunch of mean, nasty, insulting things, but he doesn't say anything about the people who worked or released that code. I think the distinction is important here. It's not abuse if there's nobody to be abused.

      Secondarily: if you read the rest of the thread, he goes on to work with everyone very productively on tracking down the exact nature of the underlying bugs, posts deep analyses of the code generation differences, proposes a patch for his own kernel to work around this GCC bug, and goes and files the upstream Bugzilla report with the GCC team himself. On the whole I'd say this is pretty responsible and cooperative behavior.

    47. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by alexandre · · Score: 2

      Meta godwin aside, I wish a major (market wise) fork would exist with grsecurity merged in by default, for example...

    48. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Lord+Maud'Dib · · Score: 1, Troll

      What, exactly, do "the community" owe you?

    49. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And having a lot of people wasting a lot of time because of your sloppy work is not abuse?

      Yes, I know we must always be nice, even with idiots and assholes. But you what? Fuck that! People who make me waste my time because they don't care deserves to be flamed.

    50. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Forever+Wondering · · Score: 5, Informative

      Perhaps. But, if you cared to look at the other posts on the thread, you'd see how calm and rationale he was. Or look at the gcc bug report he filed. The gcc bug has gotten fixed

      I've met Linus in the flesh a number of years back and he is truly a calm and mellow guy. He only does the "bullying" for the "shock effect" to get people [with strong egos] to actually start _thinking_.

      And there is some precedent for this. A number of years back, gcc was doing an illegal code motion optimization across a spinlock. After literally hundreds of posts on the gcc mailing list about how this wasn't a bug, Linus started using muscle. I would have, too, at that point. When somebody finally pointed out that the optimization was actually violating requirements in the memory model of the [then] upcoming ISO C spec, it took another hundred or so posts before they actually believed one of their own [gcc people].

      Since that time, the gcc folks have become more receptive to [rather than dismissive of] bugs filed by the kernel people--which is a good thing.

      --
      Like a good neighbor, fsck is there ...
    51. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by EdmundSS · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How else do you make the trains run on time...?

      You adjust the timetable to match reality. The trains aren't any faster, but the timetable no longer lies.

    52. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. GCC developers should not expected to stop development to avoid abusive behavior. I always find it bizarre how people justify abusive behavior and outright dickness when it comes from Torvalds. Is he effective? Yes, but more because everyone else realizes the dangerous potential for a fork. In any case, I don't agree that the end justifies the means in this situation.

    53. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds perfect. How else would you match unrealistic expectations to reality?

    54. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Skarjak · · Score: 2

      I actually find some of Linus' tirades to be pretty hilarious. He supposedly only does this to hardened veterans, so it's not that bad.

    55. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Nice code, Johnny, but that part in the middle will need some adjustment (but you're really a fine person deep inside)."

      Thanks for the painful belly laugh that projected the coffee I was drinking through my nose. Truly well played, sir! May I quote you on this?

    56. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I still think it's a cultural thing. Everytime Linux gets a bit fired up about something all Americans/Britons get all 'ohmygosh he's so aBUsive'. an 'how can ANYbody work with such a bully?'.

      The I read the original comment and I think: " meh, that's all?" You should join a meeting in the netherlands once, you'd probably need PTSS treatment afterwards :-)

    57. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do we really need parameters when we can be dicks to other people, and when we should not be? In other words, is it acceptable to be abusive, as long as you can legally get away with it? I don't think so. If someone comes to my house, it's my house. I should not feel free to tell them to fuck off, and call them losers. Maybe they should not have come over if they didn't want that verbal abuse, but I still don't think that is acceptable, and am disappointed that you think it is. Also, for the record, harsh language and curse words are not the same. I curse once in a while. I don't berate people publicly under any situation.

    58. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yes, he uses harsh language at times, but who the fuck doesn't.

      Let's look at two ways someone might respond to your viewpoint:

      (1) How could a stupid cunt like you even bother posting such a moronic comment? Seriously, go die in a fire and I hope your kids get leukemia. Only someone with severe autism and Down's syndrome would be so clueless about psychology.

      (2) I disagree. I think most gcc developers would fix this kind of bug quickly if it were pointed out. They'd also perhaps be open to a broader discussion about quality control.

      It seems like you're saying that we should all accept (1) and (2) as interchangeable, and if someone has a problem with (1) he needs to just grow a thicker skin. I think that's unreasonable, and not a standard of discourse that many of us want to work with.

    59. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's putting people in danger. That kind of stuff can ruin an otherwise secure and stable system. Who's being nice when the bank system fails and 8 billion dollars go unaccounted for, or when the plane crashes, etc?

    60. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I think that's unreasonable, and not a standard of discourse that many of us want to work with.

      Ratcheting up verbosity and removing any essence of meaning from your world salad isn't the way to go.

      What do you mean by "standard of discourse"? Are you objecting solely to the use of swear words rather than the content? Do you think it's more professional for a fire-fighter to suggest that "your residence is experiencing rapid oxygenation" rather than telling you "your house is on fire"?

    61. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      My guess would be civil discourse

    62. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Everyone gets to pass, and everyone gets an A for effort!"

      Sorry but no fucking way.

      If you are developing anything "core" to the OS, be it Linux, FreeBSD, MacOS X or Windows, stuff like can not be allowed to pass.

      Let's start with the first problem. Why is GCC being shit? It's probably because at some point they decided to switch from using pure C to C++, and C++ programmers are horrible about assuming things. That's just speculation by me.

      Second point, is Linux itself. It's something Linus wrote because the alternative was pirating AT&T Unix like everyone else was doing. So Linus can say whatever he damn well pleases about the Linux Kernel, because he's been developing it since Day 1. If he says something is broken, then it likely is. He doesn't need to be a dick about it, but I'm going to say he sounds more like Dr.House and less like White-Gangsta.

      That said, there is a reason Apple quit using GCC, and switched to Clang, and that had a long to do with license bullshit. Same with FreeBSD. They no longer use GCC as well. That means the only OS using GCC, is in fact Linux. So if Linus says it's wrong, then it's fucking wrong on Linux, and is unlikely to be right on some other OS because no other OS is using it as the system compiler.

      Minor quibbles aside, there is nothing stopping the Linux Kernel from using Clang as well.
      http://llvm.linuxfoundation.org/index.php/Main_Page

      But there is this entire GPL License bullshit problem that exists. The GPLv3 is just as toxic as any proprietary license is. So the sooner developers realize this, the sooner they should check that they are building to standard C11/C++11 and not just making assumptions that their code works on all other compilers and operating systems. Hell this is the entire reason why the OpenSSL heartbleed bug exists. It's because they were expressly making assumptions that they were only working on one OS which had one specific behavior.

    63. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just like how we all like to talk about our buddies Ed and Julian and Bradley/Chelsea and whomever. We're on a first-name basis when their ideology aligns with ours.

    64. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Trepidity · · Score: 5, Insightful

      He didn't get the job done in this case, though. He sent an abusive email about a bug that had already been patched, with a tirade about register spills that aren't even related to the bug.

    65. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 2

      If you'd actually read the linked mailing list post (or even just read the quotes of it in the summary) you'd see that none of the abusive comments are aimed at people, they're aimed at the code. He calls the code a bunch of mean, nasty, insulting things, but he doesn't say anything about the people who worked or released that code. I think the distinction is important here. It's not abuse if there's nobody to be abused.

      Secondarily: if you read the rest of the thread, he goes on to work with everyone very productively on tracking down the exact nature of the underlying bugs, posts deep analyses of the code generation differences, proposes a patch for his own kernel to work around this GCC bug, and goes and files the upstream Bugzilla report with the GCC team himself. On the whole I'd say this is pretty responsible and cooperative behavior.

      What are you doing bringing objective facts into a Slashdot debate, I mean SWJdot?

    66. Re: I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right or wrong, that sort of behavior certainly won't endear new developers to the FOSS movement.

    67. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ha ha, you said 'butthurt'. Internet lackey.

    68. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by pla · · Score: 1

      There is an obligation to not be abusive

      Hi! Welcome to the real world. You'll find the dumpster for your "participation" trophies to the left; and here, you get paid for winning, not "trying" or "good sportspersonship".

      Linus doesn't suffer fools gladly. And I applaud him for that.

    69. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are mean because they can be, like the majority of the population. People take their pain and frustration out on people who can't fight back. People get angrier and more judgmental in a car because it is safe to get agree at other inside your car. Likewise, a CEO can berate his employees because they depend on the CEO for their job and the employee most likely won't fight back.

    70. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This has nothing to do with political correctness; this has to do with being polite and professional. A useful attitude when dealing with other people, and that goes double when you are a public figure whose word carries a lot of weight. You and he may think being abusive is fine and gets results, well, more power to you. But it also means people will simply start avoiding you and your projects.

      6 years ago I set myself a goal that I have reached since: to never work for any asshole again, and to set myself up so that I can comfortably walk away from any job. Now I know I can walk away, and it makes a world of difference in the way I approach my work. My managers also know it, and it makes a difference there too, and in my view I enjoy an altogether healthier working relationship with them. The world needs Linus more than it needs most of us, but that doesn't mean any of us have to stand there and take his abuse while kowtowing to him. The guy needs a good dose of humility.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    71. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, and by his full name when we want to dehumanize him, make him sound like an untouchable celebrity (or politician?), so people don't feel like they need to empathize.

    72. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by VTBlue · · Score: 1

      This exactly.

    73. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Linus died, Linux would go right on moving, probably better.

    74. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by jcr · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't call it bullying, There's no threat here at all, just snark.

      Linus is quite the glass-house dweller, though. Hugh Daniel's comments over the years about the mistakes and misfeatures in Linux were enlightening and entertaining.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    75. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not "coarse", it's abusive. Namecalling, mocking, ridicule, hyperbole. That's abuse.

      I sacrificed a chicken yesterday and successfully committed code. You must admit that the ritualistic sacrifice got the job done.

      Oh, yeah? You think his job is that simple?

      Put your money where your mouth is: fork the kernel and do the job yourself! :-)

    76. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://quizilla.teennick.com/user_images/A/anonymousnowhere/1065153154_resr_linus.jpg

      - linus, humble, done. FFS.

    77. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you misread his comment entirely. He's exaggerating and saying that merely speaking the truth is almost considered a hate crime these days.

    78. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by mdmkolbe · · Score: 1

      Yes, he uses harsh language at times, but who the fuck doesn't.

      I don't, and most people in my professional circles don't. (At least not to the level and frequency that Linus is notorious for.) There are people who regularly do or who occasionally have a bad day, but those are the exceptions.

    79. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's been my experience that often times when faced with sub-par work, calling something sub-part or sub-optimal simply isn't enough, because it implies whole it isn't optimal, it's "OK" and while the one problem might get fixed, people move on yet it has no real effect on the culture that allowed it.

      Someone in Linus's position can't make someone do something, nor make them do it well. He can't fire a coder, at best all he can do is not accept code to the kernel if he decides a developer's patches aren't worth the headaches they cause over and over. In this case, it's become accepted that GCC is feeling a bit half-baked lately in a rush for pushing in features while neglecting quality control, but gcc isn't part of the kernel, though people still file kernel bugs when something doesn't build right.

      When you get bug after bug reported within the kernel, only to dive in and realize the compiler is doing something stupid (someone made bad choices), just saying "this code isn't optimal" or at worst, "the compiler doing this isn't acceptable" might fix one bug, but it generally has little impact on the culture.

      So yeah, people are going to mess up, and people are going to make mistakes -- and you shouldn't just crap on them because you had a bad day. But when you see a repeated pattern of crap and pointing things out nicely hasn't helped, public shaming over the quality of a product is the only tool that'll help shift the culture that allowed it.

    80. Re: I know you're trying to be funny, but... by chaboud · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sorry, but in an environment driven by praise and scorn more than money, this type of feedback is not only effective, but also probably essential. The absolute sharpest development environment I've ever worked in (in 16 years as a professional programmer) was an environment of harsh, ultra critical abuse and genuine unadulterated excitement and praise on success.

      Linus verbally abuses people who shit out bad code because it reduces the likelihood that others will shit out bad code. He also cares about the code base and tool chain and expects others to do the same or get out of the sandbox.

      In an environment where people can't be fired, this type of political play is all that exists. Growing up in an environment of complete terror of sloppiness mixed with genuine comraderie was the single best thing for my growth as an engineer that I have ever experienced.

      In an environment of people who can take it, it works. An environment of people who need only positive reinforcement or carefully metered criticism is one that will almost certainly produce shitty code and operate inefficiently.

      Besides, head-dropped sloth? That shit is just funny. If that is too much for you, good luck in the real world.

    81. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Khyber · · Score: 1, Interesting

      "all proceeds smoothly."

      Until you submit a bug report about how every kernel can be hardlocked by an elementary school student and post the exact five steps it takes to do so.

      "Oh, the kernel is supposed to do that."

      No it isn't, Linus.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    82. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like option (1).

      Only someone with severe autism and Down's syndrome would be so clueless about psychology.

      This did, in fact, make me literally laugh out loud.

    83. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      Link, please?

    84. Re: I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So did clang implement the option to disable null check omissions yet? That's what blocks it. *NULL does not always crash in kernel mode. Changing the system limit to force it breaks stuff.

    85. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The problem is that he sets the tone for the entire project. His lieutenants and those who would like to be inherit the tone and M.O., but many of them don't "get it" and start abusing people. Before you know it the kernel is an ugly unpleasant place to work, and it really doesn't have to be.

      You can be stern without being a dick. Ask your grandmother for tips if you need to.

    86. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everything about your comment is shit. Completely ridiculous bullshit in its utter stupidity. Stop making such retarded pieces of shit as comments.

      -- lt

    87. Re: I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its all Steve Jobs's fault. He was an asshole, and he was successful. Now everyone thinks they have to be an asshole to be successful.

      Abusive hate crimes as perpetuated by the likes of Jobs and Torvalds cannot be allowed to stand. Not in this country, not in any country. Arise, and strike thee down with the vengeance of justice. For none shall rest till we are absolved of this hideous crime.

    88. Re: I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your usual tactic of claiming that someone said something they didn't may work with your ignorant political rants, but you just make it painfully obvious what an idiot you are when you do it in a conversation where people actually have a clue.

    89. Re: I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So it's just like Jobs and the Apple community? Dude kicked his pregnant gf to the kerb but Apple dudes still worship his ass.

    90. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by AlCapwn · · Score: 1

      Thank you ...stupid Git.

    91. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People are emotional creatures.
      If you don't care how people react to your criticism, then by all means continue saying that their code is shit and terminally broken.
      Otherwise, just report the bug and leave it at that.
      If I find a bug in the code of one of my colleagues I don't walk over and tell them how badly their code sucks.
      I tell them there's a bug, they fix it, and we all move on without either of us getting angry and talking about how the other persons work is shit.
      Neither of us has to feel publicly humiliated.
       

    92. Re: I know you're trying to be funny, but... by bradgoodman · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I've been doing Linux development for about 15 years - including lots of kernel work. I never have, nor ever would posted anything to the kernel mailing lists. With a few exceptions - like when I can hand it off to someone else or go through a third-party - is rather have one of my patches die - than to submit it. Reason? I've seen this kind of attitude and "abuse" and - quite frankly - would never want to subject myself to this kind of abuse should anything I say or submit be erroneous and have to tolerate listening to how "retarded" I or my work is. Personal feelings aside - I wouldn't want such very public commentary about me or my work living in such a perminant and searchable archive - say by some future employeer. I wonder if I'm alone. I wonder if others have the same attitude. I wonder if some of the actual smartest people in the world (not me) might have done some great work - but would be too shy to ever let themselves be noticed.

    93. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd laugh so hard if the CEO of Boeing did that on any developer mailing list.

    94. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Zaelath · · Score: 1

      Making your argument reductio ad absurdum doesn't make your argument.

    95. Re: I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but in an environment driven by praise and scorn more than money, this type of feedback is not only effective, but also probably essential. The absolute sharpest development environment I've ever worked in (in 16 years as a professional programmer) was an environment of harsh, ultra critical abuse and genuine unadulterated excitement and praise on success.

      You're missing the fact that there are many competent developers out there who do not want to work in such an environment. Treating people in this manner is likely to result in not receiving their potential contributions.

      Willingness to tolerate abuse or dish it out isn't the same as competence.

    96. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by antdude · · Score: 1

      Typical of geeks with chickens. ;)

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    97. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Bug GCC isn't his project. If you were on his project you should at least be allowed to leave to avoid the abuse.
      Another big problem here is that he doesn't seem to distinguish boneheaded mistakes from honest mistakes, or mistakes that should have been caught in testing versus those that slip past a large set of regressions.

      Basically what happened here is that he lost some time on his own project, and is expressing his frustration on others.

    98. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Vellmont · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >("Getting the job done" does not, and has never required being abusive to others. Getting the job done while being abusive is not proof that being abusive is required or even was part of, "getting the job done.")

      Hmmm.. I'm going to disagree here. Being verbally abusive is a technique to demand change in an organization. We all like to think leaders all command respect and everyone just follows them because they're the leader. Bullshit. One technique, employed by MANY leaders is being a total fucking asshole, at least part of the time. You think anyone would be talking about this GCC bullshit (and if what Torvalds says is right, it's really completely fucked up, and not excusable) if Linus just put a nice, politely worded request to just fix shit? I don't think so. But even if he was nice and polite, and got the thing fixed, there's little or no consequence for the fuckup, so it can happen again. If you're coding GCC, maybe you might at least sub-consciously think "boy, I better not release utter shit, or I'll catch some serious shit from that asshole Linus Torvalds... what a cock gobbling asshole that Torvalds is".

      This idea you have that everything can work in a nice polite society where everyone has mutual respect for each other can work sometimes, in limited capacities. But the norm is for assholes like Linus to sometimes throw shit-fits, and others to work in fear of having a shit-fit thrown at them sometimes.

      Is that the ONLY way to run an organization? Probably not, but as another thread points out, it's a common pattern of effective leaders.

      --
      AccountKiller
    99. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Need a tissue, liberal?

    100. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (1) How could a stupid cunt like you even bother posting such a moronic comment? Seriously, go die in a fire and I hope your kids get leukemia. Only someone with severe autism and Down's syndrome would be so clueless about psychology.

      But this isn't equivalent to what Linus said. Linus heavily criticized the *compiler*, not the developers. Nor did he hope that bad things would happen to the developers. Here, let me take a stab at it:

      "Lookie here, your comment does some absolutely insane things with the language, including spilling a *profanity*. For chrissake, that language shouldn't have been allowed to graduate from kindergarten. We're talking "sloth that was dropped on the head as a baby" level retardation levels here .... Anyway, this is not a language bug. This is your comment using completely uncivil language. We may need to add a warning to make sure nobody comments with slashdot moderation, and the DICE people should probably downgrate [sic] their shiny new commenting code."

      That's what Linus actually said with a few alterations to make it fit this situation. Note the difference? Linus' harshness is directed towards the compiler, not the people. By contrast, your example is ad hominem at the person and only barely criticizes the "psychology" as you put it.

      Your (1) is abuse, but it bears no relation to what Linus actually said. There's an argument that Linus should use more temperate language, but you're not bothering to make it with your straw man example.

    101. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why are people so sensitive? does it even matter how he says it?

      he got the point across -- compiling with gcc 4.9 and the -Os flag breaks the kernel.

    102. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by walshy007 · · Score: 5, Informative

      From a prior discussion from linus.

      Oh, I'll be polite when it's called for. But when people who know better send me crap, I'll curse at them. I suspect you'll notice me cursing *way* more at top developers than random people on the list. I expect more from them, and conversely I'll be a lot more upset when they do something that I really think was not great. For example, my latest cursing explosion was for the x86 maintainers, and it comes from the fact that I *know* they know to do better. The x86 tip pulls have generally been through way more testing than most other pulls I get (not just compiling, but even booting randconfigs etc). So when an x86 pull request comes in that clearly missed that expected level of quality, I go to town. Similarly, you will see fireworks if some long-term maintainer makes excuses for breaking user space etc. That will make me go into incoherent rages. The "polite Linus" example that you point to? That was a maintainer asking for direction for when things went wrong and *before* sending me something dubious. Of course I'm polite then. Sarah, I don't have Tourettes syndrome. You seem to think that my cursing is uncontrolled and random. I argue that it has causes. Big difference.

      Yes. And I do it partly (mostly) because it's who I am, and partly because I honestly despise being subtle or "nice". The fact is, people need to know what my position on things are. And I can't just say "please don't do that", because people won't listen. I say "On the internet, nobody can hear you being subtle," and I mean it. And I definitely am not willing to string people along, either. I've had that happen too—not telling people clearly enough that I don't like their approach, they go on to re-architect something, and get really upset when I am then not willing to take their work. Sarah, first off, I don't have that many tools at hand. Secondly, I simply don't believe in being polite or politically correct. And you can point at all those cultural factors where some cultures are not happy with confrontation (and feel free to make it about gender too—I think that's almost entirely cultural too). And please bring up "cultural sensitivity" while at it. And I'll give you back that same "cultural sensitivity". Please be sensitive to _my_ culture too.

      some people don't believe in going "oh I'm sorry dear, you are an awesome sugar plum fairy but your performance in this little area was below expectations, especially when it is quite clear said person should know far better given their position of responsibility.

      He is clear, to the point, and gets things done.

      This is not abuse, this is quite clearly saying that it is screwed, and how it is screwed. It is productive conversation.

      All of linus' tirades are followed by an in-depth message detailing in what way they are wrong, being direct and to the point is his style, which he is entitled to.

      If calling for standards of quality in a very direct way is abuse.. well.. start a new kernel where you accept any old tripe and see how it goes? And only interact/depend on with projects who have a similar standard and means of management.

      Linus is a very pragmatic, practical engineer. Don't let feelings get in the way of practical needs people. His style works far better than most.

    103. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why are people so sensitive? does it even matter how he says it?

      he got the point across -- compiling with gcc 4.9 and the -Os flag breaks the kernel.

      Well he comes across as a child throwing a tantrum. At some point people will be tired of his crap and turn their backs on him and not listen.

      Which is better for the linux community as a whole? Linus acting like an adult or no one listening to him any more because of his childish tantrums?

    104. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's being a bully, pure and simple

      Oh for God's sake, grow a pair. The compiler is a piece of shit, and contains mistakes that a first-year intern should be ashamed of.

        "He's a bully 'cause he hurt my feelings" - grow the fuck up, already. If you are so goddam pure and righteous, write a better kernel, get a world-wide reputation, and you can be "soft and gentle" with those who screw the pooch badly, and "save" their self esteem.

      I hope that the next time you have a medical problem, or are in a car wreck, and someone else is at fault, you will avoid suing them, 'cause you might hurt their feelings.

      What an ass!

    105. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And to those that think it's okay to talk abusively to people - don't be surprised when someone breaks their foot off in your ass for treating them like that. If you're man enough to talk to people like that, you're man enough to take the ass-kicking you'll eventually get for it.

    106. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by walshy007 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      From linus at a prior time

      Oh, I'll be polite when it's called for. But when people who know better send me crap, I'll curse at them. I suspect you'll notice me cursing *way* more at top developers than random people on the list. I expect more from them, and conversely I'll be a lot more upset when they do something that I really think was not great. For example, my latest cursing explosion was for the x86 maintainers, and it comes from the fact that I *know* they know to do better. The x86 tip pulls have generally been through way more testing than most other pulls I get (not just compiling, but even booting randconfigs etc). So when an x86 pull request comes in that clearly missed that expected level of quality, I go to town. Similarly, you will see fireworks if some long-term maintainer makes excuses for breaking user space etc. That will make me go into incoherent rages. The "polite Linus" example that you point to? That was a maintainer asking for direction for when things went wrong and *before* sending me something dubious. Of course I'm polite then. Sarah, I don't have Tourettes syndrome. You seem to think that my cursing is uncontrolled and random. I argue that it has causes. Big difference.

      Yes. And I do it partly (mostly) because it's who I am, and partly because I honestly despise being subtle or "nice". The fact is, people need to know what my position on things are. And I can't just say "please don't do that", because people won't listen. I say "On the internet, nobody can hear you being subtle," and I mean it. And I definitely am not willing to string people along, either. I've had that happen too—not telling people clearly enough that I don't like their approach, they go on to re-architect something, and get really upset when I am then not willing to take their work. Sarah, first off, I don't have that many tools at hand. Secondly, I simply don't believe in being polite or politically correct. And you can point at all those cultural factors where some cultures are not happy with confrontation (and feel free to make it about gender too—I think that's almost entirely cultural too). And please bring up "cultural sensitivity" while at it. And I'll give you back that same "cultural sensitivity". Please be sensitive to _my_ culture too.

      In effect you are whining that calling a crap code submission crap is not professional. Linus is a very pragmatic and practical man. That so many people want everything to go smoothly and politely even when shitty things are submitted/done reflects poorly on that "everyone is a winner" kind of culture that propagates that mentality.

      We should not prioritize peoples feelings over code quality. If something horribly break things that we've known for a while and know they are capable of better, we should be able to tell people that that was crap and we expect more of them without them whinging to the political correctness police yelling "abuse".

      This mentality seems to keep on spreading amongst the new generations, and I fear for what the software development industry will look like in fifty years with all of the pragmatic people thrown out by those more concerned of peoples feelings.

    107. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Drakonblayde · · Score: 1

      What obligation would that be? I don;t think you understand what obligation means.

    108. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by walshy007 · · Score: 1

      When you are as famous as linus, every time you swear at code you're likely to get media attention. So I don't think it is as prevalent as you may think it is.

      I certainly know that if there a media circus every time I swore it would be a lot more frequently than what we've heard from linus.

    109. Re: I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're missing the fact that there are many competent developers out there who do not want to work in such an environment. Treating people in this manner is likely to result in not receiving their potential contributions.

      There are also those out there that don't respond as you might expect to such treatment, and those people often have no problem leaving you broken and bleeding on the floor as a result. Being a bully presupposes that whoever you're bullying will be more civilized than you in their response. That's not always the case.

    110. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, Macintosh "unix" has a pretty big share of the market.

    111. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      The real question is whether this level of childish behavior helps to make Linux a better product or makes it a worse product. The ultimate proof of its success is in market share against other operating systems. Hold on, let me go check the newest stats... Ok Linux is a failure and if this where any rational company Linus would be fired.

    112. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Now, now, now, it's not the version control system's fault that you checked in a bug....

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    113. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by thegarbz · · Score: 4, Funny

      Won't somebody think of the code!

    114. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It is also a common pattern of ineffective leaders. Hence bringing into question if it actually does add to the effectiveness of said leaders.

    115. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Mostly+a+lurker · · Score: 3, Funny

      arguments are in the next article

      No they're not!

    116. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Maybe if he wasn't so abusive then Linux wouldn't be a niche for nerd-tards.

      I think you mean Kernel development. Linus has nothing to do with marketing or pushing Linux. Debian, Gentoo, etc all handle that side. -1 for trolling.

    117. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by musth · · Score: 1

      That's not dehumanizing, that's standard practice.

    118. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IT is functional. If you produce and are good at your work you can get away with certain behaviours, within limits of course. However there are lots of prima donnas in IT and plenty of Asperger's types. I'm not claiming special status for IT, just pointing out the reality I've experienced.

      If I encountered really bad work and I reported it, and it got blown off or minimized, I'd be pissed too. In fact that happens to me pretty regularly. The difference is, Linus has a bully pullpit and can get better behaviour from the people involved. He has a reputation and he's living up to it here. I'm not seeing a problem, beyond the GCC issue, worth criticizing here.

      If you want a relationship oriented career, might I suggest the following: social work, marketing, fundraising, charitable organizations, or many others.

    119. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Repeating the same post as before.

      > The ultimate proof of its success is in market share against other operating systems
      > Ok Linux is a failure and if this where any rational company

      It's virtually the standard for servers (just cite something to illustrate your point). -1 for troll #2 although I would have also set Redundant if you hadn't specifically added more misinformation.

    120. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Cl1mh4224rd · · Score: 1

      If you read the message, you may have noticed that he called the code shit, not any person coding it.

      The code didn't write itself...

      --
      People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
    121. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...the people who deserve the apology are the people who were subject to an abusive tirade.

      You can point out someone made a mistake. There's no obligation to be "nice" when doing so. There is an obligation to not be abusive, which is what Linus repeatedly does. Abuse includes mockery, ridicule, name calling, etc.

      He's being a bully, pure and simple - using his popularity to shove around others. That should not be tolerated, full stop.

      This is one reason I stopped writing free code for Linus. Kernel developers with my level of expertise get paid handsomely. If I am charging you billable hours you can yell at me and abuseme all you want during that time. If I am volunteering my skills and donating my time to a free open source project and get yelled at and abused, I'll do something else with my time--like hang out with the wife and kids.

    122. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a professional developer you know what I expect from my peers? To not fuck up. To be competent. To not break shit. When ever Joe Developer breaks the build for the 6th time this week, and I go off on him, guess what, it's him lacking professionalism. Professionalism dictates you are good at what you do. In the development world, that you test your shit at least to the level of not breaking other peoples work flows. Fact is, if GCC has these bugs, it's due to a lack of professionalism on their part.

    123. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > Well he comes across as a child throwing a tantrum. At some point people will be tired of his crap and turn their backs on him and not listen.

      Possibly, but it hasn't happened yet. He's angry, and justifiably so, but certainly could express that more politely.

      I don't think he's throwing his weight around; he's always been like this - he didn't mince words even back when nobody knew who he was.

    124. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      where is that obligation.. I don't remember reading it in the GPL.

      I'd rather have a beer with Torvalds than RMS any day of the week and I don't even drink.

      anyways, had he not been so called abusive, I would not know that version of gcc is crappy and that someone was shipping that with some release(i guess unstable though)

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    125. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      dangerous potential of a fork of what?

      of fork of the broken gcc or fork of the kernel that uses some kludgy kladgy to get around the broken gcc?

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    126. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The day I refer to another man's butt, and the sensations it may or may not be feeling, is the day you can call me Richard Simmons.

      Come on, people. Stop talking like 20 year olds. Grow the fuck up.

    127. Re: I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A guy in charge of a big open source project swears at a specific version of a compiler in a development related mail list, and that triggers an article + 418 comments?

      Nobody at the mail thread complained and he filed a bug at the gcc tracker with the specific details and no swearing.

      Is it really worth to make a big deal out of every thing this guy says?

    128. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But he didn't. That's the joke. One of his promises was that he'd make the trains run on time, but he never accompolished that; they were attrocious. So people would joke, "Yeah, things were terrible with Mousilini in charge, but at least the trains ran on time!" ... A generation later, and people didn't understand the joke, now everyone seems to think he actually made the trains run on time.

      Linus actually does a good job on the kernel, despite being a dick. Mousolini didn't really do anything well.

    129. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A fucking 14 yr old halo player would fuck your mom, you insensitive clod. Linus is way more clever in his abuse than 14 fucking year old shitty kids. Suck my cock!

    130. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      He's being a bully, pure and simple - using his popularity to shove around others. That should not be tolerated, full stop.

      If it was pure abuse. maybe, but history if full of abusive assholes who did amazing things, purely because the abuse isn't by some ignorant asshole, but one who actually knows what they're talking about.

      Now, if there's something you don't know about, being abusive is just being abusive. But if you do know your shit inside and out, being abusive can get your point across.

      Steve Jobs, Theo De Raadt, and Linus Torvalds are basically the few who are abusive assholes, but everyone also knows that they do know what they're talking about. (In Job's case, the RDF is basically a mirror that says "is that REALLY the best you can do? You can't do it any better if you tried?").

      Oh yeah, it's a terrible environment - there are plenty of people who packed up and left Apple after meeting Jobs (many really good people too). Just like there's plenty of kernel devs put off by Linus, and likewise for OpenBSD. Unfortunately, the truth is, they do get results.

      And no, MBA types, you can't do it. Only a very limited few can be assholes and get away with it. Chances are, if you're not one of the three people I listed (of which one is deceased), you won't succeed.

    131. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Nyder · · Score: 1

      ... Pete Carrol, the head coach of last year's Superbowl winning Seattle Seahawks, is known for being a very nice and laid-back guy, and doesn't fit the typical mode of the "screamer" type coaches we've all seen.

      ...

      Oh, we are going to win the Super Bowl this year also.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    132. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by lilrobbie · · Score: 1

      I feel for your poor historians having to suffer repeated busting :'(

    133. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by ZeroPly · · Score: 1

      I think a lot of programmers are overdue for an abusive tirade. Apparently the plethora of advice on writing good code hasn't been sinking in - from my perspective as an administrator, every time I turn around there are another hundred bugs I have to patch. If you're writing a compiler, and are this sloppy, you really shouldn't be expecting anyone to stand up for your delicate feelings.

      --
      Support microSD: in a post 9/11 world, it is unwise to carry your data on media that you cannot comfortably swallow.
    134. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by lilrobbie · · Score: 1

      The other thing that seems to be frequently lost in these "Linus acting off" articles is how few and far between his rants actually are. We see 1, perhaps 2 of these a year? And as near as I can tell practically *all* of his discussions are on public mailing lists.

      I suspect most readers getting all hot and bothered over Linus's response on the kernel mailing list probably missed the fact he went and raised a GCC bug on the issue, and seemed to have a perfectly reasonable interaction with the GCC developers: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/s...

    135. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      Without root privleges, and with properly set up security?
      Because of course there are things like 'drivers in the userspace' where the user can create a blocking function where one that's supposed to return immediately should go, and obviously these can hardlock the kernel. But you need root to do that.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    136. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is an obligation to not be abusive

      No, actually there is not.

      Abuse includes mockery, ridicule, name calling, etc. He's being a bully, pure and simple

      I'd like to point out that you are engaging in name-calling here.

      This is the real world. It's not kindergarten, it's not happy-joyful funtime. Yes, I will agree that Linus is often more than a little abrasive and rude in how he calls people out publicly. Big Deal. Grow a thicker skin, or stop going out in public, and stay off the internet. While his delivery certainly lacks grace, the substance of his criticisms is completely valid and accurate.

    137. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His manner is coarse

      It's not "coarse", it's abusive. Namecalling, mocking, ridicule, hyperbole. That's abuse.

      you must admit that he's gotten the job done. Linux advances on schedule, patches get incorporated, code gets tested, and all proceeds smoothly.

      I sacrificed a chicken yesterday and successfully committed code. You must admit that the ritualistic sacrifice got the job done.

      ("Getting the job done" does not, and has never required being abusive to others. Getting the job done while being abusive is not proof that being abusive is required or even was part of, "getting the job done.")

      Or maybe just maybe the butt pokers that wrote the offending P O S need to leave the crack and weed out and just get on with the job in hand and write a decent tool know what i mean .. Eh! ...

    138. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      Amen to that.

      Professionalism is primarily doing your job correctly.

      Stuff like good behavior, dress code or good relations are all secondary to that.

      If you lack in the latter cases, you may be in for a mild reprimand. If you regularly fuck up the former - oh well, Linux is unable to fire a GCC developer, so he goes for the next best thing in that situation.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    139. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you don't care how people react to your criticism, then by all means continue saying that their code is shit and terminally broken.

      He doesn't care how they react emotionally, and neither do I nor should you.

      Otherwise, just report the bug and leave it at that.

      In the formal bugtracker, that's all he did.

      If I find a bug in the code of one of my colleagues I don't walk over and tell them how badly their code sucks.

      No, but he's also not really a colleague of yours. And while I tend to take the same approach you do, there are times when I have to go to that person's Boss and tell them quite frankly how much of a steaming pile of shit I get to clean up. There is no such central authority figure to mediate disputes in this particular situation.

      Neither of us has to feel publicly humiliated.

      It's up to YOU how you feel. If you want to feel butthurt because someone trashed talked your shitty code, then by all means feel insulted. Or you could grow a thicker skin and get on with your life, instead of acting like a child and allowing even the slightest insult spoil your mood. And more to the point, you could also decide that in the future, you won't make elementary fuck-ups, and do a better job of QA on your code before you try to commit it into a project.

    140. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It certainly soured my experience with "the community" to the point I drifted mostly away from Linux.

      In other words, you need a group of people to hold hands with as you skip through the flower fields of life, singing happy songs. Or else you'll go find someone else to play with.
      Which is fine, it's your life. Personally, I simply looked around and figured out that there isn't such thing as a single "Linux Community", just like there isn't a "Football Community" or a "Computer Community".
      And I also find it a little strange that you would think the support you get from Microsoft or Apple is somehow better... if it wasn't for Lip Service they'd have no service at all.
      But I guess that this new generation of overly sensitive adults, who are still emotional children, have actually bought into the idea that life is a happy, cuddly place where nobody deserves to have hurt feelings or wounded pride, and that it's somehow my responsibility to manipulate your emotional state of being via my choice of words.
      Good Luck with that. Someday you'll get verbally slapped in the face and there won't be anybody for you to go cry to about it.

    141. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by enoz · · Score: 2

      Adjusting the timetable is a short-sighted fix. A real visionary redefines the meaning of late.

    142. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bake a cake, you criticise the cake. Is your argument still valid?

    143. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I worked in a project group once, that had a director who acted like that. I had been on several conference calls with him where he really ripped into someone who was not prepared for the call. He didn't use profanity, but he would yell and basically call people out in front of their peers. My project had a status update conference call with him the day before our weekly build and you can bet that I was always prepared for that call. He may have been an asshole at times, but it worked.

    144. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by linuxrocks123 · · Score: 1

      Linus Torvalds is paid by the Linux Foundation to work on Linux kernel development full-time.

      Here's a list of who funds the Linux Foundation: http://www.linuxfoundation.org...

      Do you think all those companies are irrational?

      --
      vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
    145. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hey now, we're talking about GCC, it's entirely possible that it did

    146. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by linuxrocks123 · · Score: 1

      Yes, GCC has bugs. So do ALL optimizing compilers.

      GCC, relative to other compilers, has a pretty good track record of stability, actually. Try using the Intel compiler sometime. I used it for 20 minutes and it segfaulted on me. That's better than generating incorrect code, I'll grant you, but damn.

      I'm not saying GCC didn't do something very wrong in this instance ... spilling immediates is insane by itself ... but compilers are hard, and GCC is a solid one overall.

      --
      vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
    147. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by SuperDre · · Score: 1

      And you really think there aren't any bugs in the code he ships? think again..

    148. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by serviscope_minor · · Score: 0

      Linus is actually a very humble guy

      His rants about C++ do not sound like the rants of a humble person.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    149. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by linuxrocks123 · · Score: 1

      We really don't, actually. I mean, yes regarding employment -- if you're worth it, people will put up with you, but you'd be MORE valuable and probably PAID more if you were less "high maintenance" -- but not with the law. Look at Justin Bieber, for instance. Having money can unfortunately help with legal issues, so it may look like we go easy on celebrities, but, if anything, politically motivated prosecutors probably like the publicity they get for being "tough" on people who think they're "above the law".

      --
      vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
    150. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not the brits surely?
      we tend to be a more.. robust, in our use of the mother tongue.

    151. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Sproggit · · Score: 1, Insightful

      No, the code did not write itself.
      Somebody wrote a steaming pile of shit, and submitted it to one of the MOST important branches of open source development content.

      Did they test it before committing?
      Y) - Then why commit shit you know is shit?
      N) - How can you commit without testing?

      There is NO excuse for knowingly submitting code THIS broken.
      There is even LESS excuse for unknowingly submitting feces instead of decent code.

      If the developer of the code is actually talented, they will appreciate the enormity of their blunder, and instead of being a "modern-day oversensitive, metrosexual, lets not have any winners but give everyone a prize, oh shame but didn't he try hard, but what about his feelings?" fuckup, they'll not do it again.

      If they're not talented, they can fuckoff and code for someone else.

      Simple. no?

    152. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 2

      Your job (most jobs anyway) includes working with others. Yes, fucking up too often will ultimately get you fired, but if you think a sterling reputation as a coder will let you get away with being an a-hole, think again. Abrasive personalities and prima-donna attitudes can ruin a team just as badly as a poor coder, and if you regularly rip into other developers in public for making mistakes, you will likely be the one being called in for a serious conversation with your manager.

      In case of Linux kernel development, Linus doesn't have one of course, he pretty much is the CEO on that endeavor.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    153. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Garbonzo's Law.

    154. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The register spills are related, because they are indicative of the overall level of quality of this compiler. The point is, it's not "just a bug". The fault caused Linus to review gcc 4.90 and he found it wanting in other areas too. The real point is, if you can't compile Linux, you aren't ready to release your compiler, and what other signs are there that they weren't ready to release the compiler? Suboptimal behaviour from the optimizer does count, I'm afraid, and the "job done" is raising awareness of this issue. gcc should be grateful he still cares. There's no real news here, after all. It's just yet another fuckup from the cathedral model of software development. The sooner everyone moves to the LLVM bazaar, the better.

    155. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by rev0lt · · Score: 2

      I'd say pretty much every protected-mode/mode switching assembly line in 2.0/2.2, and the USB stack issues in 2.4.12 - 2.4.22. And the whole swap mechanism of pre-2.6 (and specially pre-2.4). And the shitty shitty DOS-style syscalls in x86! Wtf was that? Intel/AMD even came up with a shiny new instruction, since apparently linux devs (Linus?) cannot be bothered in reading about level switching with call gates.
      Anyway, dreadful bugs? Can't recall any major one. I did have some linux machines locking up randomly, even when they shouldn't, but most of the times, its a driver issue, not the kernel itself.

    156. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      Isn't linux running more servers on the internet than any other OS? Webservers, certainly. And databases, a lot of application servers.

      The only place where Windows server rules is for the corporate LAN, because it's built to run active directory and uses the same permission structure. If you've got Windows desktops, you want Windows server to control and coordinate them all.

      Linux's failure on the desktop isn't really a technical issue, it's a business issue. It's near-impossible to push aside an entrenched player in any field where compatibility is an issue. The staff training costs alone are a nightmare. Microsoft got in at a critical time (Just as the desktop was going huge) and managed to win by a combination of being 'good enough' and some excellent (If ruthless, given how they sabotaged OS/2) business skills - and once in, they stuck.

    157. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by SuperTechnoNerd · · Score: 1

      I know this so called uber-programmer, who is just like this, perhaps worse. instead of shoving people around, he fires them. He simply will not tolerate mistakes and will blow a cork when he sees them. He will berate you, belittle you, embarrass you if front of every one, then maybe fire you.
      Rather standard behavior for upper level, ego driven programmers it seems.

    158. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My God, you are a whiny little fucking bitch. Here's a free hint: no one gives a shit. No one cares about your feelings. No one cares about your opinion. No one cares that Linus used a swear word in an email. No one, but no one, gives a single shit stained fuck about you and your friends latest SJW "war" against Linus and "Ohh the big bad Open Source meanies who use sweary words and hurt feels".

      Go boil your fucking head, you cunt.

    159. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If something horribly break things that we've known for a while and know they are capable of better, we should be able to tell people that that was crap and we expect more of them without them whinging to the political correctness police yelling "abuse".

      I just want to point out that "political correctness" means to be extra sensitive to the culture and to the way words might be interpreted by social minorities. ie, to refrain from calling someone "a stupid ginger," or telling them to "stop throwing like a girl." In the extreme, it may mean allowing otherwise unacceptable behavior from social minorities, because that behavior is actually acceptable within the minority group. There is no sense in which calling a piece of code, or even a person, "a sloth that was dropped on its head as a baby" violates political correctness.

      Linus' tirade violates a completely different new-age social structure: self-esteem. The self-esteem police are the people who insist that trying hard is just as good as achieving. They're the people who insist on participation trophies and social promotion. It's probably a good system for 2-6 year olds, but by the time a kid hits high school (let alone professional life), he ought to be able to tell success from failure, and he ought to know that only one of those outcomes is valuable.

    160. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is also a common pattern of ineffective leaders. Hence bringing into question if it actually does add to the effectiveness of said leaders.

      Unlike Steve Jobs - who was well-known for being abusive as well as effective - Linus doesn't run around slinging epithets lightly.

      Thus, when he does let loose, it gets more attention.

      Both management styles do seem to be effective, but I know which manager I'd rather buy from. Especially since I've had the experience of seeing companies where management's disrespect for their employees has been mirrored by an equal lack of respect for their customers.

    161. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Wootery · · Score: 1

      Meta godwin aside

      Nonsense. It's clearly a quasi-Godwin.

      You, sir, are worse than Hitler.

    162. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You can point out someone made a mistake. There's no obligation to be "nice" when doing so. There is an obligation to not be abusive,

      [citation needed]

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    163. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How can professional programmers possibly release such poor quality applications? I mean what feature or bug in GCC is v4.9.0 supposed to address? If "developers" are simply committing often rather than only committing tested and working code, we have the poster child for poor software development practises that are promoted as good software development practises.

    164. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by smash · · Score: 1

      Modded troll, but it's pretty true, albeit derogatory towards the second half. In the above time-frame, I've seen nowhere near as much breakage in FreeBSD. FreeBSD even ship compatibility shims in the ports system to enable older applications to work. Microsoft has managed compatibility far better, even apple has done a far better job, and they're probably the most likely vendor to break user-space apps out of the lot.

      The above poster also forgot the ipfwadm/ipchains/iptables/nftables debacle - sure, FreeBSD has multiple firewalls but they're all supported and not deprecated from release to release.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    165. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by smash · · Score: 1

      Nothing, unless they want people to actually contribute and spread the word. 1 user who gets screwed by an update = a heap of people told about how linux still isn't ready for prime time, and the support forums are full of assholes.

      Does wonders for enticing companies to provide platform support.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    166. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by smash · · Score: 1, Insightful

      And this kids, is why Linux will never enjoy significant market share on end user devices.

      And yes, I'm sure someone will mention Android. Yeah sure, it's Linux. Just keep telling yourself that.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    167. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by smash · · Score: 1

      "I have a copy of phpnuke/moodle/wordpress running in my bedroom" != server.

      And yes, active directory is a big reason enterprises are Windows focused.

      It's 20-fucking-14 and the Unix world still doesn't have an out of the box working directory service. No, i don't want to create my own LDAP schema and fuck with kerberos and PAM.

      No, NIS+ is not a replacement.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    168. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They've been trying to do that here in the UK for years, and the trains are still late :-(

    169. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go suck your sisters cock, you prude piece of oatmeal.
      The internet is not a place for sissies and weaklings.

    170. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by funky_vibes · · Score: 1

      C++ proponents aren't very humble, neither is the language itself.

      I also get upset with people constantly trying to shove C++ on top of C projects, just because they don't know C very well.

    171. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And being a free project, it's also the quickest ways to get people to say "Screw you asshole" and walk away....

    172. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could move to Tokyo, where the trains already run on time, except in the case of suicide by train, heavy weather or the last train of the night.

    173. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem stems from your lack of understanding of humility. Often people confuse confidence and knowlege with arrogance. They also confuse the willingness to have and express strong opinions with arrogance. None of these things are arrogance. In other words, if you really are smarter than the mass of men, knowing that is not arrogance. Indeed, we have a classification for people who actually are better at something and know it but pretend they are not. It is called false humility. Being humble means acknowleging ones strengths and weaknesses, as well as not believing that ones strengths make them a more valuable human being.

      People who lack humility don't make self deprecating jokes. Ever.

      If you investigate why he chose git as the name for his SCM tool, you will start to get an idea of his humility. When he says that others do all the work and he gets all the credit, he is specifically being openly self-deprecating. If you really believe he doesn't do a shit ton of the very important work then you are quite mistaken. After all, who tracked down this very subtle bug, which requires an in depth knowlege of both the kernel and assembly language?

      Finally, most of the criticism that comes his way comes from people who don't understand his humor. You can watch his 1995 Google talk on git, where he calls people who use SVN ugly and stupid, to see an example of his humor. If you really think he is arrogant then you are ugly and stupid :-)

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    174. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      Oh quit whining. Asking incredibly gifted people to continually stifle their feelings because of everyone else's is just as unfair.

      The GCC people don't have to care what he thinks, but if they do, now they know. Nobody got berated in person, nobody got flogged, nobody got fired (yet).

      I for one hate dealing with people who tiptoe around their feelings. If I ask someone what they think of something, I want to know what they think, not some edited version they prepared to spare my feelings.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    175. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a tech list, get over yourself. GCC has been garbage for a very long time. Their bugs are blamed on to the kernel, that's why Torvalds et al are so pissed off with hunting non-existing kernel bugs. This has been the case since the late 90s.

    176. Re: I know you're trying to be funny, but... by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      The people who respond on Slashdot about Linus aren't in any position to have opinions but they feel the right to share them anyway.

      Meanwhile, Linus is in every position to have the right to his own opinions about the things he rants about.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    177. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by fche · · Score: 1

      "spilling immediates is insane by itself"

      Not if the immediate takes more bytes to represent in the instruction stream than the bytes needed to reload it from the stack, and the compiler was told to optimize for (insn) space.

    178. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by visualight · · Score: 1

      Have you ever been to Boston?

      --
      Samsung took back my unlocked bootloader because Google wants me to rent movies. They're both evil.
    179. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by hey! · · Score: 1

      And Mussolini made the trains run on time?

      Reports of trains *not* running on time certainly decreased, but that's not quite the same thing...

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    180. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      people need a kick up the ass and it's a good thing.

    181. Re: I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Immerman · · Score: 1

      So, he should cater to the personalities of the people that might theoretically contribute in the future, rather than to the personalities of those who have proven themselves by contributing for years or decades? Doesn't sound particularly effective to me. Perhaps it might be worth considering if the community were suffering from a shortage of contributors, but as far as I'm aware that hasn't been the case in decades.

      Meanwhile, my sense is that Linus mostly only pulls out the abusive language in the face of gross incompetence - such as situations like this where major bugs make it into the release versions of critical infrastructure.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    182. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      supposed to be a stale release

      I think you meant "stable", you mouth-breathing pathetic piece of shit. Go back to the kiddy pool until you can learn how to type.

    183. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So who did he abuse? Sloths?

      Did you read anything before making your self-righteous comment? Yeah, you didn't.

    184. Re: I know you're trying to be funny, but... by chaboud · · Score: 1

      I'm not missing anything. I think there is a balance between abusive language and professionalism to be had, and nothing in his incensed email steps over the line. Would I write it? No, but I wouldn't quit over it either.

      It takes time to be measured and restrained, and the party that never snaps at someone doesn't have the hidden backstop of snapping to keep things in line. People should want to avoid disappointing Linus, and negative reinforcement matters.

      It can't be all carrot. There has to be a stick.

      What happens when you only stick to professionalism? I've worked in a couple of companies that stuck to professional communication only and strongly frowned upon brutal honesty. Guess what? They're inefficient, bloated, bureaucratic messes that allow horrible engineers to get by (or even ahead). Have I learned to play in that environment? Sure, but it's a losing formula.

      Likely couples, teams should learn how to fight. If they don't, passive aggressive sniping and collective failure are almost certain.

    185. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Khyber · · Score: 1

      No link, but go ahead and watch what happens when you set up a SWAP in actual RAM, encrypt it, and then fill it up.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    186. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Yes, without root priviledges, and with properly set up security.

      Your SWAP is vulnerable. Start paying attention to it, especially if you're one of those experimental types that likes to put a SWAP file in RAM and encrypt it. Security holes, security holes EVERYWHERE. But they can't be easily exploited because the kernel locks as soon as the SWAP gets filled.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    187. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Found a link which is pretty much the same issue.

      https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubu...

      And apparently, according to some commenters, this has been around since the late 90s.

      And still hasn't been fixed.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    188. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Khyber · · Score: 1
      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    189. Re: I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      The problem is that bugs like these can be incredibly hard to spot. This particular one was fixed before he went on his tirade from what I understand - so it was whoever that was compiling his kernel that wasn't using the latest patch set. Plenty of bugs make it into production kernels - I've got a btrfs bug driving me nuts with compress=lzo enabled in the current stable branch. I'm not going to gripe at the volunteers trying to fix it - this stuff is hard to get right and I knew I was dealing with something cutting-edge when I started using it.

      EVERY new gcc release has bugs in it, or if nothing else it will expose bugs in whatever you're using it to compile. I run Gentoo and we run into them all the time since everybody and their uncle is independently compiling everything with 47 bazillion slightly-different configurations.

      And pandering to only your current community is unwise because of selection bias. I can argue that I don't need a lawnmower because my slaves have been doing fine with scythes for the last 100 years, but that doesn't mean that a lawnmower wouldn't make the job easier.

    190. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by ultranova · · Score: 1

      We all like to think leaders all command respect and everyone just follows them because they're the leader. Bullshit. One technique, employed by MANY leaders is being a total fucking asshole, at least part of the time.

      Yes, and the result it gets is that those who can, leave, and you're left with those desperate enough to put up with you taking your personal problems out on them. And even they will do their best to hide anything that might set you off from you, so you'll get the winning combo of bottom of the barrel workers and bad situational awareness.

      You don't get respect by acting like an asshole. You get treated like the crazy person you are.

      If you're coding GCC, maybe you might at least sub-consciously think "boy, I better not release utter shit, or I'll catch some serious shit from that asshole Linus Torvalds... what a cock gobbling asshole that Torvalds is".

      Or you'll just start deleting messages from him without bothering to read them. If there's a serious bug, a person who isn't an asshole will report it eventually. Even if you're getting paid and must open the message, there are other bugs not submitted by assholes, and guess which - or rather, who - gets priority?

      Is that the ONLY way to run an organization? Probably not, but as another thread points out, it's a common pattern of effective leaders.

      It's a common pattern for people who get power, even through pure luck. Lots of people only behave because of peer pressure, and when that pressure eases a little, they lose control and degenerate into schoolyard bullies. That doesn't mean their behaviour was the reason of their success - especially since they only start manifesting it after gaining power - rather than a personality flaw that makes them less effective.

      Compare this article about the rampant use of cocaine in Silicon Valley. Is the cocaine abuse there the reason to Silicon Valley's success, or a symptom?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    191. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1

      Remember that egcs fork of GCC? That happened because the GCC team was being unresponsive/not fixing bugs/not updating for a while.

      They have learned their lesson.

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    192. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "There is an obligation to not be abusive, which is what Linus repeatedly does. Abuse includes mockery, ridicule, name calling, etc."

      No, there is no obligation to not be abusive. You are not in charge of the obligations other people have.

      If you choose not to be abusive, thats fine - if other people choose to be, thats fine as well. Its a matter of personal taste. I have no problem with his abuse. If you do, too fucking bad.

    193. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      C++ proponents aren't very humble

      What like Strostrup? Sutter? Alexandrescu? Some evidence required for your bold claim.

      neither is the language itself

      That makes no sense whatsoever.

      I also get upset with people constantly trying to shove C++ on top of C projects, just because they don't know C very well.

      I also get upset by people needlessly sticking to C because they don't understand C++ very well. Your point?

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    194. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Well he comes across as a child throwing a tantrum. At some point people will be tired of his crap and turn their backs on him and not listen."

      If foul language offends your delicate sensibilities, you are perfectly free to ignore what Linus says, due to his language, and use the broken fucking code.

      Go ahead - use broken code to show Linus that you arent going to stand for that abuse.

       

    195. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by mdmkolbe · · Score: 1

      Yes, there will be some amplification effect, but I know plenty of well-known developers that do not have the abusive reputation that Linus has. For example, Larry Wall or Simon Peyton Jones. (I'd like to list more like Yukihiro Matsumoto or Guido van Rossum, but I don't hang out in those particular circles enough to really know.) Even accounting for the amplification effect, Linus is on the extreme end of the spectrum in this regard.

    196. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      In other words, if you really are smarter than the mass of men, knowing that is not arrogance.

      His most recent rant about C++ smacks of arrogance, because it's a very strongly held opinion backed only by incorrect facts, poor logic and outright logical fallacies. He is smarter than "the masses" but he's not smarter than people like Stroustrup, Sutter, Bright, Alexandrescu, Stepanov and such like. They are all preeminent in their fields and very, very smart people.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    197. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      /r/redpill is -> that way

      Don't let your fedora fall off on the way out.

    198. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It's not "coarse", it's abusive. Namecalling, mocking, ridicule, hyperbole. That's abuse."

      There is nothing wrong with abuse of this type, so fuck off.

      The world and the people in it are not going to lower themselves to the level of a goddamn liberal arts dorm.

      When people care about things, they are abusive to those who are perceived as a threat to those things. Deal with it, it isnt going to go away.

    199. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I also like your idea of a "humble" guy that regularly uses abusive language towards people. It might explain a thing or two."

      When someone does something that can fuck up an ecosystem that literally millions of peoples livelihoods rest on and billions of dollars flows through, then ye not only is being abusive acceptable it is fucking required.

      Its this special snowflake bullshit from people like you that makes others ~want~ to not only verbally but physically abuse every single one of you.

      You and everyone else is just another human being, no more holy or sacrosanct than any other.

    200. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by AlterEager · · Score: 1

      especially if you're one of those experimental types that likes to put a SWAP file in RAM and encrypt it.

      Why would you put the swap file in RAM?

      Why would you bother encrypting something that's in RAM?

    201. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by rochrist · · Score: 1

      You seem really really invested in this. Lighten up, Francis.

    202. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1
      Perhaps you could provide a link? Is it this one, in which Linus is dead on? Of course, even if he is wrong that is not proof of arrogance, and makes my point that you don't quite understand what does and does not constitute humility.

      "He is smarter than "the masses" but he's not smarter than people like Stroustrup"

      I guess you completely miss his point. If Stroustrop was the only person writing C++ code then your point might be valid. Then again, I doubt Bjarne thinks C++ is a good language for OS development when there will be thousands of developers involved either. Can you show me something that suggests he does?

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    203. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does the special snowflake not like how another is calling out people on their broken software?

      Seriously, in one way or another GCC has been broken for a *long* time now. At some point, such things need to be said.

    204. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This isnt true at all.

      The whole point of yelling and cutting through the bullshit is to motivate people to get pissed at you and try to prove you wrong. More often than not, it works. Part of the purpose is to make you mad enough to get off your lethargic ass and act.

      I've been yelled at by supervisors a number of times, and I've yelled right back. You dont get in trouble, you earn respect.

    205. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Dishevel · · Score: 2

      Even god almighty couldn't make an Italian work, Mussolini never stood a chance.

      FTFY

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    206. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Ensuring security for the generation of sensitive/confidential temporary data files.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    207. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by funky_vibes · · Score: 1

      Stroustrup has just recently said that C is obsolete.
      Not that I care, C++ is his baby. But, is it in your opinion humble, to call the most popular language in existence obsolete?

      "I also get upset by people needlessly sticking to C because they don't understand C++ very well. Your point?"
      Case in point.
      You think that people don't understand C++ if they don't prefer it for every project.

      That's the core of why people dislike C++, it's not necessarily the language, it's the whole culture around it, which reeks of self-entitlement and navelgazing.

      C++ may have been created as an extension of C once upon a time, but clearly people disagree on the benefits of C++ on some types of projects.
      I'd say that C++ tends to kill productivity on some larger projects because people get bogged down into arguments about language details instead of getting work done. And in this case kill is an understatement, because refactoring tends to make up half of commit history.
      C++ isn't helped by this hodge-podge pile of junk like stl and boost that people see as some form of standard library. Things like Qt had to come in and save C++ from early death, so things are starting to look up.

      Anyhow, for low level code, C is much preferred because it doesn't hide things and that the developer culture is much more mature, often more skilled and result-oriented.

    208. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by DamnOregonian · · Score: 2

      It's as linux as linux can be...

      I'm sure you know that Torvalds et al., didn't write the userspace you're referring to as "Linux".

      Android is another open-source OS running on the Linux open source kernel. It is Linux.

      Also, there is no kernel in existence with greater market share on "end-user" devices than Linux. None. My TV runs it, my Blu-ray player runs it, my little TV dongle runs it, my router runs it, my little cheapy off-the-shelf SAN runs it, my cell phone runs it, the damn IPMI firmware on my machine runs it... Unless of course Linux + busybox is also "not Linux", then I guess nothing runs Linux except for Desktop PCs.

    209. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      I think he cleverly manipulated you into making his point for him.
      A rant against your language of choice has nothing to do with humility.

    210. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      I have to call you out on call-gates.
      They suck. That's why Linux didn't use them (int 0x80). That's why Windows NT didn't use them (int 0x2e), though they did use them on the 16/32 hybrid "dos-like" kernels ;). That's why *BSD didn't use them (int 0x80). That's why OSX doesn't use them (int 0x80).
      Cache locality is horrible, the far pointer requires more bytes/instruction, and segment registers suck- especially when running in protected mode. (see: protected mode paging)

      The "DOS-style" syscalls you're referring to are a software interrupt trap, (also called a trap-gate). Every OS worth mentioning used them prior to SYSENTER being introduced.

    211. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I disagree. Political correctness of the 90s has led to today's "rule" that all opinions are valid and of equal value when anyone with a functional brain knows they are not. Linus is merely saying what ought to be said. Maybe a little public ridicule will be the motivating force to ensure that this sort of thing doesn't happen again.

      Would you prefer we hand the developers an award for "participation"?

      In the immortal words of Jonah Hill "..That is literally an award for sucking!!"

    212. Re: I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's important because he's exposed some serious fuckery in a core piece of the open source toolchain, also it's funny when he goes into rant mode.

    213. Re: I know you're trying to be funny, but... by sillybilly · · Score: 1

      At least he still has some spine left. Linux has been sabotaged for forever now. Last halfway decent thing I found was Lighthouse Puppy 4.1.2rc1 with Voyager and Mariner, (i.e. KDE addons), and the superficial appearance was deceiving of the great sfs layered file system it was running on. But Linux is a hopelessly complex mess now, bloated beyond belief, as far as I last saw, and because of the bloat, slow. Too many features. Too many new ways of doing old things, not backward compatible.

      Linux might be better off starting a new project. Like making a good FreeDOS GUI. The beauty of DOS is that it's small, simple, and ready to die, pull the plug on it. Only 15 or 30 disk buffers, no bullshit disk cache ready to get corrupted. Bare to the metal, direct hardware access. The philosophy of Unix used to be to have small programs that do one thing, but do it extremely well, but then they come up with busybox that loses that philosophy, and bundles everything together. Lpr is turned into CUPS as a service, always listening on a port. That's overkill. Keep it small and simple at the core, and add features as needed. What's the tiniest kernel, as a stable, secure core to add features to, achievable with recent releases? 150 KB? I think not. The best Linux to tinker with I've found to be Basic Linux, running off of 2 floppies or hard disk, with rudimentary X windows, but even its compiler is messed up, it creates code that runs mind blowingly fast running Erastothenes' sieve, but craps out at very low numbers to what the amount of bytes in the C types it uses would indicate. It's like the only thing to trust is assembler, but that's too much work, that's what compilers are supposed to be for. Last time I had a stable existence and time to learn and tinker computer stuff enthusiastically, feeling somewhat secure, was 2001. My income to expense ratio was very high at that time, and that provides peace of mind. Now I'm getting x-rayed and gassed all the time to move into more expensive housing out of my own will, by people who derive a lot of income sittin' back and collectin' from the housin' market without having to do too much work for that money, when I'd rather move into housing I had in 2001, if I could find a secure one like that. I don't have many needs, though I accumulated a lot of junk. Junk always fills the available space for it. But just cuz I'd like to play with computer stuff, like Basic Linux, it does not mean I'm good at it, there are plenty of others that leave me in the dust in this kind of stuff. People that roll their own OS, like React OS, Solar OS, Free DOS, etc. It's like they want you to write good GNU/Linux software, and they are ready to pummel your shit in the ground, they are like let's fight, you can't create anything we can't steamroll and fuck up, in Linux, and I agree, I can't. Destroying is always easier than creating. And why Linux, or even Unix, on the desktop. On the server, yeah. There is something about old school windows like Windows 2000 or XP being standard that runs so many useful and already written things, it's almost not worth it to mess with new stuff, in a world where you are fully off line. And I'm preparing to be off line again for a long time, if not for good. Stuck in the past, knowing what I learned well and too old or just not interested to learn new things that do the same exact things but even less efficiently. What more can a computer do, than play sounds, video, pictures, spreadsheet, word processor, CAD and such, and a few games? All that stuff, like spreadsheets, was better developed in 2001 than it is today, as far as I can tell, the new versions are anal retentive in the ways you have to bend over backward to accomplish things that were really easy before. Except some new games with nice features, but I like the low tech old ones better, if there is time to kill. Like Railroad Tycoon 2nd Century. Anything newer is too eye candy rich and game play poor, or too complex in rules. These days I'm an on line gamer, on the Internet Go Server. Even dial up is overkill o

    214. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by the_B0fh · · Score: 1

      If you write shit code, you shouldn't be called out for writing shit code?

    215. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by DocHoncho · · Score: 1

      No, they run on Linux, and the GCC bug screwed up the timing so now they're late. Should have used FreeBSD.

      --
      Celebrity worship is a poor substitute for Deity worship and costs more to boot.
    216. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      where did you get yr info about Mussolini?

    217. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by harrkev · · Score: 1

      Can you please explain? The "G" in "GCC" stands for "GNU," so isn't that "The Bazaar" by definition?

      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    218. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > If you write shit code, you shouldn't be called out for writing shit code?

      Not really necessary with open source. Just fix it.

    219. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course you're going to be abusive if your product (kernel) critically depends on someone else's (gcc, which is needed to compile the kernel to make it work) such that a lot of people will blame you if it breaks.

    220. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most professional communities are rather pragmatic, and ultimately rewards *success* above all else, unless you cross over a very big line...doesn't fit the typical mode of the "screamer" type coaches we've all seen

      What most people don't realize is that screaming at people is often considered a form of assault in US jurisdictions, particularly if one is on close proximity to the other party (such as within the same room). It is thus something managers and other leaders have no business doing to their subordinates or peers. Leaders that are stupid enough to do this are not professional in any sense of the word, and are practically begging to either lose an expensive lawsuit or even do jail time.

      Thus, the limits to being pragmatic, and the associated line, are in a rather different place than most folks realize. Sometimes expressing anger is ok. We are all, after all, human. However, when possible, it's better to make courtesy the norm, rather than taking the risk that one will accidentally cross a line one may not even realize exists.

    221. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

      You want contradiction. That's down the hall.

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    222. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      arguments are in the next article

      No they're not!

      Yes, they are...stupid git...

    223. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by i.kazmi · · Score: 1

      Windows 8 to Windows 8.1, laptop would regularly take 10-15 minutes to restart or shutdown, the fingerprint reader locked me on the login screen in a way that I couldn't even login using my password so had to restart with the power button, the hard disk and processor usage when the system was idle would suddenly jump to 90%+ for extended periods of time (especially problematic if on battery), WiDi dropped dead and several other 'improvements'.

      After restarting the laptop for a gazillion times (which took 10 to 15 minutes each), I managed to update all the drivers but sadly WiDi and the fingerprint reader were still not working and the disk and processor usage would still jump to around 90%+ if the system was left idle for around a minute so I've had to switch off any form of background maintenance tasks the OS might perform.

      I must admin though, despite thousands of posts in forums, HP and MS support staff are still extremely polite and paste the same solution in response to pretty much every problem: "run teh virus scanner and if there are any viruses, remove them", if no viruses are found and the person seeking support is persistent enough: "Update teh drivers", updated drivers: "... ... ... [crickets]", so much better than the OPs experience

    224. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A man is what he does, and if what he does is being called "sloth baby falling on its head retardation" then you might as well be calling them that as well.

    225. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by mike4ty4 · · Score: 1

      I thought "political correctness" was about avoiding things like racism or other types of prejudice (e.g. avoiding talking about black people as being inferior or something). That's a very good thing, IMO. I didn't think it was about saying that every opinion is equally valid, which is a logical impossibility as they all contradict each other.

      (And not all compilers are equally bug-free.)

    226. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by cold+fjord · · Score: 0

      When someone does something that can fuck up an ecosystem that literally millions of peoples livelihoods rest on and billions of dollars flows through, then ye not only is being abusive acceptable it is fucking required.

      Actually no, it isn't. Professionalism is required. Abuse is unhelpful.

      Its this special snowflake bullshit from people like you that makes others ~want~ to not only verbally but physically abuse every single one of you.

      That is a defect in your/their character that could lead to serious problems. Growing up would be a good start, and maybe some counseling.

      You might want to remember this: making a habit of engaging in "physically abuse" might leave you lying in the street some day. The world is full of way tougher people than you, many of whom won't look it, and some of whom are armed.

      You and everyone else is just another human being, no more holy or sacrosanct than any other.

      And no less.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    227. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope. ESR's use of the term "bazaar" for community development predates GNU's product.

    228. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by linuxrocks123 · · Score: 1

      I hadn't thought of that. You'd need to be telling the compiler, "focus on space to the complete exclusion of execution speed", but you're right. I'd call that a pathological case, though.

      --
      vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
    229. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Sproggit · · Score: 1

      Have I worked for you before?

    230. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by AlterEager · · Score: 1

      But they're in RAM.

      If someone can read your RAM they can read your decryption key.

    231. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      Swap file in RAM?
      I always thought that's a kind of in-joke. Something like that marathon runner carrying bricks, so that he could drop them before the last mile for extra boost.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    232. Re: I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I share the sentiment, so we are at least two. I am not confident enough to publicly my code on such a list.

    233. Re: I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it reallt worth making a big deal out of others making a big deal out of it?

    234. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And, presumably having everyone shot who claims they are late.

    235. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by mark_reh · · Score: 1

      I think it had its roots in the civil rights movement, where the key concept- that racial discrimination is bad morphed into ALL discrimination is bad including intellectual and physical ability, hence the handing out of awards to everyone for participating in an activity and the dumbing-down of school grades in a misguided effort to spare the self-esteem of the less "abled".

      In a classic example, right wing Xtian nuts have seized on the recent inability to discriminate against stupid ideas and started pushing ID to be taught along side (and presumably to replace) evolution as if the two concepts were intellectually equivalent.

      In this case, a crap result was called out as such. No names were mentioned, so only those who participated in producing the crap (they know who they are) had their self-esteem taken down a notch.

    236. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I found that type of a bug in a compiler I will be cursing it too; then go and ask politely a developer to fix it.

    237. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meta godwin aside

      Technically, Godwin is for Nazi's or Hitler. Mussolini was a fascist.

    238. Re: I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Your code must really suck for you to be that afraid". THAT is the message you're giving out to future employers, you know.

      Anyway, one of our standard practices for kernel developer recruitment is that we aren't impressed by people who cannot face one of the vger lists. They are at best able to do half the job they'd be supposed to do.

    239. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Khyber · · Score: 1

      You don't know how to segregate RAM into self-contained pools? It's only something we've been doing for 20+ years.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    240. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by AlterEager · · Score: 1

      So why are you worried about someone being able to read your swap file, which for some unfathomable reason is in ram, but not your decryption keys, which are also in ram?

    241. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by stonemirror · · Score: 1

      Heh. Linus has already weighed in on how much regard he gives to the opinions and viewpoints that get expressed on this site: "the pinheads on slashdot".

    242. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by rev0lt · · Score: 1

      They suck. That's why Linux didn't use them (int 0x80).

      Wrong. Linux didn't use them because every Unix OS out there didn't use them because... You know, they weren't designed specifically for x86. And - contrary to *every* single f***ing int 0x80 implementation out there, x86 Linux uses/used to (before SYSENTER) by-register instead of by-stack parameter passing convention.

      That's why Windows NT didn't use them (int 0x2e)

      Windows NT didn't use them because it was designed as a highly portable micro-kernel. Initially they targeted other architectures besides x86, such as MIPS. There were other reasons, and AFAIK most of the *actual* protection mechanism from the kernel was developed by an outside consultant (read it on a book some years back about Windows 95, cannot vouch for accuracy).

      That's why *BSD didn't use them (int 0x80).

      BSD kernels weren't designed for x86. They were ported for x86. The ports were done using the most generic approach. And every x86 BSD kernel uses by stack convention, not by register.

      That's why OSX doesn't use them (int 0x80).

      OSX wasn't designed as a x86-only operating system, and also inherits from BSD and XNU. XNU is based on Mach, which is based on 4.2BSD, so again, a port, not a native x86 development.

      Cache locality is horrible, the far pointer requires more bytes/instruction and segment registers suck- especially when running in protected mode

      You're kidding me, right? A single call that triggers a processor mechanism that creates a destination stack frame, SECURELY copies X bytes of stack between levels and invokes a higher - or LOWER level function? Most 32 bit code is 4-byte aligned anyway and binaries built page-bounded, so the actual savings are bare to none. And call gates are *actually* faster than interrupts. And given the way that protected memory works, I'd expect to see way more cache penalties on the interrupt approach than with a call gate. And all this not considering the huge amount of executed code before dispatching the actual syscall, at least on the kernels I mentioned.

      The "DOS-style" syscalls you're referring to are a software interrupt trap, (also called a trap-gate).

      No, you're confusing software interrupts (such as int 21h, int 80h, etc) with parameter convention. DOS-style is to pass parameters to interrupts by register, eg. ah=25h, al=00, int 21h. Every other x86 unix implementation passes by stack, not by register. There is the "but its slower" argument that falls when you actually look at the 2.0 kernel implementation specifics.

      Every OS worth mentioning used them prior to SYSENTER being introduced.

      True. Most unixes did it because of ABI compatibility (the use of int 0x80 predates any semi-decent protection mechanism from Intel, probably by a decade). Also, most OS developers aren't really tied into building a better mouse trap; If you look at it, most OSs use more-or-less exactly the same design, because most of the guys building them all learned from the same book and the same source references (nothing wrong with that, and it is truely the work of masters), and the guys that didn't usually don't care about x86 at all. Some are little details (such as the call gate stuff), others are a bit more serious (as in the case of not using the cpu's segmentation mechanism in userland applications to provide complete separated read-execute and read-write selectors), but in the end is like having a Ferrari to drive to church :)

    243. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Because you never know. So you keep stuff separated to the very end, even in RAM.

      Also, still need that IOPS speed!

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    244. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by AlterEager · · Score: 1

      Do you know what a swap file is for?

    245. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Yea, apparently I know of more places to put than you do, as well.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    246. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      Sigh.

      https://lkml.org/lkml/1998/9/3...

      I don't know what else to tell you. They really do suck. Trap-gates are faster and safer. Call-gates are... prettier, more elegant. It's probably much a much narrower/null lead these days with massive caches, but back in 98, it was serious business. The various kernel mailing lists are abound with discussions on people wanting to try out call-gates, and finding out that *they suck*. It had nothing to do with portability.

      Hell, today's SYSENTER mechanism isn't remotely portable.

      Also, SYSENTER wasn't switched to until we ran into the P4's massive pipeline stall on trap-gates, which the AMD K6 did *not* exhibit. It wasn't a fundamental problem with the trap-gate itself, but a quirk of the Netburst architecture.

      Whether you're grabbing privilege descriptors on from the IDT or the GDT/LDT, it's the same amount of work. One has smaller instructions and less bouncing around in memory. That's it. The fact that the unices/dos used entry 0x80 in the IDT, and NT used 0x2e, and 95 used 0x30, with call-gates to VxD code (eventually gotten rid of) doesn't mean the methodology of the trap was what was inherited. Just the number. The methodology was used because it was sound, and the sanest.

    247. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by the_B0fh · · Score: 1

      Have you looked into how OpenBSD got started?

    248. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by rev0lt · · Score: 1

      https://lkml.org/lkml/1998/9/3... [lkml.org] I don't know what else to tell you. They really do suck. Trap-gates are faster and safer. Call-gates are... prettier, more elegant.

      Have a look at Linux 2.0 implementation. You'lll see an interrupt handler copying registers to the stack, and *then* invoking the call gate. So basically, doubling the work. And no, interrupts are not safer, as they don't provide stack isolation. This is done *manually* in the Linux implementation.

      It's probably much a much narrower/null lead these days with massive caches, but back in 98, it was serious business.

      I seriously doubt that. I was working extensively with x86 assembly in 98, and actually implemented call-gate systems in some of my pet projects. Granted, they were pet projects, not a mainstream piece of OSS, but I don't share that experience.

      he various kernel mailing lists are abound with discussions on people wanting to try out call-gates, and finding out that *they suck*.

      AFAIK, the implementation 2.0/2.2 still uses a call gate. Not directly, but inside the IV.

      Also, SYSENTER wasn't switched to until we ran into the P4's massive pipeline stall on trap-gates, which the AMD K6 did *not* exhibit. It wasn't a fundamental problem with the trap-gate itself, but a quirk of the Netburst architecture.

      It is a fundamental problem with the trap gate. The pipeline size and the agressive branch prediction mechanism only made it worse. Shorter pipelines don't suffer as much, as they are faster to clean and less prone to stupid execution stalls. Also, there was a huge amount of optimization done on silicon for this since 32 bit operating systems using interrupts became mainstream, and the same can't be said for the architecturally complex call-gate solution. SYSENTER simplifies a lot, but performs basically the same task as a call gate.

      The fact that the unices/dos used entry 0x80 in the IDT, and NT used 0x2e, and 95 used 0x30, with call-gates to VxD code (eventually gotten rid of) doesn't mean the methodology of the trap was what was inherited

      Actually, the fact that many other architectures do not provide any other user-defined global entry point besides the interrupt table has a huge weight in it; I don't see any problem with the metodology, if you're implementing a portable system. I see problems with a specific implementation of it on an operating system designed from the ground up for x86, and one of those problems is that whoever implemented it clearly had no clue about how it worked.

    249. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the register spill tirade was actually completely wrong. The "constant" that was spilled was read via an asm volatile statement, so the compiler had no choice but to save that value by spilling it. Reordering the code to avoid the spill would have violated the volatile.

    250. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by SuperBanana · · Score: 1

      I replied to someone who said that "his manner is coarse." They were speaking of Linus's general manner, not his specific conduct in this particular case.

      Linus has a long history of name-calling, mocking, ridiculing, etc.

      Context.

    251. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by AlterEager · · Score: 1

      The swap file holds pages for which there is no room in RAM.

      So you're putting the swap file in RAM.

      Odd.

    252. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Apparently you're not smart enough to keep anything and everything on your home system.

      Go ahead and keep proving linux zealots wrong with your conviction.

      I could knock your poor security on its ass.

      PROTIP: Since the early 90s, Backtrack was built upon my exploits.

      You owe me, same way Sony owes me for revealing their own problems.

      Bow down and STFU knave.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    253. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by AlterEager · · Score: 1

      Oh, sorry, I didn't realise I was talking to an insane person.

      Hope you get better.

      Bye.

    254. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Notice I got modded down for daring to say this type of behavior is NEVER excusable, I don't care if its from Cook or Ballmer or Torvalds you should act like a PROFESSIONAL, not a spoiled brat halo player. And I'm sorry but cursing anybody out in public, along with flipping the bird to companies who don't do to suit him? He's acting like a brat NOT the head of such a large important project. and the fact that so many will put up with this prima donna behavior and actually make excuses for it? Just shows there IS A REASON why IT has such a bad name.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    255. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Calling someone retarded is no less insulting than screaming nigger or faggot at them...are you telling me that is acceptable? or how about Linus flipping the bird to a major manufacturer that a LARGE part of the community REQUIRES to do their jobs? What if Nvidia said "ya know what? Fuck you Torvalds, from now on? They can buy OSX or Windows" and called it a day?

      he is not only giving FOSS a bad name, which is pretty bad considering what RMS did in public left Torvalds pretty much the ONLY face of FOSS that didn't look like a loon, but he is also giving every stereotype of IT, that IT is full of maladjusted man children that behave like 14 year old punks, credence. We get enough of that shit without Linus acting like a fucking prima donna, thx.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    256. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "Oh, sorry, I didn't realise I was talking to an insane person."

      Yup, you keep thinking I'm insane. Meanwhile, I'll keep developing technology, such as zero-light growing technology and proving ill-educated twits like you wrong.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    257. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Lando · · Score: 1

      And lets not forget you, since you have to been smart enough and knowledgable enough to evaluated all the work that these people do. You obviously are the best qualified to make that decision. And you have. And by pointing out that Linus is obviously not within even the remotest inkling of talent of these "REAL" smart people and is being an asshat, doesn't that just make you an asshat for calling him an asshat.

      Screw off. I like my kernel worked on, Linus gets the job done, I'm willing to put up with him being an asshat at times.

      My questions though, is what have you done for me lately?

      --
      /* TODO: Spawn child process, interest child in technology, have child write a new sig */
    258. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, aren't you the cutest little girl ever!

      You are a weeping vagina. You must spend most of your life frightened.

      GTFO

      The current GCC team deserves all the abuse and ridicule they get, and than some.

    259. Re: I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Making a new paragraph only costs a single character.

    260. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So was Hitler...

      The Nazi Government and German corporations were intertwined, just like today's Amerikkka

    261. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you have a project that people from all over the world work on, along with many corporations with competing interests, you need a very strong personality at the center of it to keep it from degrading into a pile of shit.

      BTW, you are a giant pussy.

    262. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      20+ years of constant success says you are a clueless dumbfuck who only reads about the rare Linus blowup and thinks that is the sum of his contribution to discussions.

      Spend 10 minutes on the kernels mailing list and you will see it doesn't match your clueless expectations.

      It is idiots like you who need to be smacked down daily until you either get it or get out.

    263. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      C++ is a bloated pile of shit. The only language that is designed more poorly is PHP, which is utter dog shit.

      Name one complaint about C++ from Linus that was incorrect. Just one. It is a completely inappropriate language to use in the kernel and Git and just about anything. The fact that GCC has declined greatly since they moved to C++ is not a coincidence.

      Stroustrup is an insecure idiot who designed the least self-aware OO language in history and glosses over the shit of his language by spewing stupid quotes like "There are only two kinds of languages: the ones people complain about and the ones nobody uses". That is self-serving and stupid.

      I emailed him once asking why C++ arrays are so stupid they don't even know their own length(name another OO language that stupid) and to his credit responded, but completely dodged the question with a non-answer.

    264. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny, I have done 8 straight distro version updates without a clean install and have had exactly 0 issues.

    265. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you even know what the purpose of swap is?

      Why the fuck would you have your swap in RAM?

      Are you fucking retarded?

    266. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by vilanye · · Score: 1

      You must be a member of the participation trophy generation.

      Yup, a proper chef knows how to accept criticism and if he is truly good will admit his cake is shit, and make an acceptable cake to replace it.

      You, on the other hand, are a weeping vagina that needs to man up and take responsibility for your shitty cake.

      No participation trophy for you!

    267. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by walshy007 · · Score: 1

      Calling someone retarded is no less insulting than screaming nigger or faggot at them...are you telling me that is acceptable?

      Linus generally insults code and sometimes companies actions, he'll only curse at people when he knows them well and knows they are capable of far better. I think swearing at code is acceptable.

      he is not only giving FOSS a bad name, which is pretty bad considering what RMS did in public [youtube.com] left Torvalds pretty much the ONLY face of FOSS that didn't look like a loon, but he is also giving every stereotype of IT, that IT is full of maladjusted man children that behave like 14 year old punks, credence. We get enough of that shit without Linus acting like a fucking prima donna, thx.

      He is being portrayed without the original context in order to advance an image that he is some lumbering monster, and from your reaction it is working. It is not linus' fault if you can't see through the "oh, think of the children" style media manipulation for extra eyeballs.

      Drama sells, news at 11.

      If the people complaining about it all actually followed the lists and followed the technical and social problems encountered there and how they are dealt with, we wouldn't have half of this bickering.

      As it stands it's mostly people out there looking for fault, and I don't expect linus or anyone else to try to censor themselves in such a way that there is no possible way out of context to be misconstrued as the bad guy (it's actually pretty hard).

      Linus is a perfect example of a no-bullshit engineer, with great insight into the work processes both technical and social that go on behind the kernel.

      With the media having so much sway, and nobody actually giving a shit to see how things are and how they work, I fear the "oh dear that poor persons feelings" mob have already won.. at least until they try and stay away from any software project where any kinds of standards were enforced on moral principle, in which case.. at least they won't be on the internet anymore.

    268. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Zenin · · Score: 1

      How did this load of crap get +5 Insightful? Oh that's right, it's Slashdot.

      --
      My /. uid is better then your /. uid
    269. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      Probably because it offers an insigtful analysis of a completely absurd post, rather than being a post with no information or analysis by a person now crying like a little girl that they didn't get to get away with spreading false information full of gems such as this: "If we actually talk about the full OS (aka distributions)" in a discussion about Linus Torvalds and the kernel. That was, of course, just the most blatant example of your inability to know the difference between the kernel and user space.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    270. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      Yes.

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
    271. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Inzkeeper · · Score: 1

      Stupid git.

    272. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Bullshit, you can spin all you want but you can't use a bullshit "context" excuse when it came to Nvidia. he named a company that has been trying to support Linux, despite Xorg being a steaming pile, and gave them the bird, again like a 14 year old brat...NO EXCUSE for such behavior.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    273. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Stupid git.

      Hey, I *like* git! More than Subversion, anyway...

    274. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Political correctness is going to kill us all. Stop it, you fuckhead.

  27. Need many compilers? Try Gentoo... by gentryx · · Score: 1

    On my machine, I have clang 3.4.2-r100, gcc 4.9.0, 4.8.3, 4.7.4, 4.6.4 and icc 14.0.3.174 installed. All simultaneously, no hassle.

    --
    Computer simulation made easy -- LibGeoDecomp
    1. Re:Need many compilers? Try Gentoo... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      aka try using linux and not just some package manager...

  28. Strange censorship by evilviper · · Score: 5, Funny

    "pure and utter sh*t," only with no asterisk

    So he actually called it, "pure and utter sht"?

    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    1. Re:Strange censorship by MindPrison · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "pure and utter sh*t," only with no asterisk

      So he actually called it, "pure and utter sht"?

      Remember, that's the guy that said "Nvidia, F*CK YOU!". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
      He's a passionate, colorful character...he's been like that for as long as I can remember him. Thank god there's still awesome nerds out there that just can't be bought.

      --
      What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
    2. Re:Strange censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, I would say this is quite justified of censorship !

      There is an expletive so utterly disgusting, so alarmingly obscene, so totally beyond description amoral that I am hesitant even to mention it here, even in code. In fact, I expect you misunderstood the text and Linus was using another expletive utilizing an extra letter, cause he can't, he just can't have ment the following phrase. Still, here it is (I beg of you, do not attempt to break the code if you want to keep your soul intact) :

      "Frtjnl Uhzna Genafcbegre"

    3. Re:Strange censorship by AchilleTalon · · Score: 1

      In return, GCC guys decided to call his OS "L*n*x" only with no asterisks. Actually Lnx.

      Which may in turn trigger a suit from QNX guys who actually do not use any asterisks at all.

      --
      Achille Talon
      Hop!
    4. Re:Strange censorship by sjames · · Score: 1

      Yes. He was going to say shit but got distracted when a penguin bit him.

    5. Re:Strange censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks like you missed the "joke".

    6. Re:Strange censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Frtjnl Uhzna Genafcbegre"

      Segway Human Transporter?

    7. Re:Strange censorship by hawk · · Score: 2

      Actually, it already happened, with gnu moving first.

      RMS *already* demanded that Linux be called "lignux", and changed the code of EMACS at one point to make that, rather than "linux", the target.

      hawk

    8. Re:Strange censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He could have actually called it "pure and utter shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhht"

    9. Re:Strange censorship by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      How did he pronounce the asterisk?

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    10. Re:Strange censorship by evilviper · · Score: 1

      RMS is in for a nasty surprise when Linux distros start using all the BSD libs and userland, and shun the unnecessary GNU equivalents.

      mksh is far superior to bash, anyhow.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    11. Re:Strange censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mksh?

      Oh, a successor to pdksh...

      I've always used zsh for interactive and pdksh for scripting (when portability is important, otherwise whatever is installed as /bin/sh) since '97, anyhow.

  29. Oe noes! "Naughty" language! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Linus describes the compiler as "terminally broken," and worse ("pure and utter sh*t," only with no asterisk).

    So he said "shit". Big deal. It's just a word. Not like the "replacement" obscures it any, or even gets pronounced differently. Seriously, shit without the i (sht) sounds pretty much identical. But somehow, that maintains the "pureness" of the quoter, or something.

    Some people really need to learn to grow the fuck up when it comes to language.

    1. Re:Oe noes! "Naughty" language! by HiThere · · Score: 1

      I, personally, dislike swearing even when "sanitized".

      OTOH, I do realize that this is my personal taste. I feel it makes the communication less clear.

      OTTH, written communication lacks the richness of communication by speech. This means that there is no inherent channel corresponding to tone of voice. When someone uses swearing as a substitute for certain tones of speech, it's really hard to say there is a better option. The alternative work-arounds tend to be verbose. Also, swearing via the use of the term "shit" appears to be something we inherited from our common ancestor with chimpanzees, because if they are taught to sign they will automatically use the term "shit" to describe persons and situations that they dislike.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    2. Re:Oe noes! "Naughty" language! by brantondaveperson · · Score: 1

      Yes, that's right. Words don't mean anything.

  30. Re:Great. Now the sloth community... by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 3, Funny

    is going to be gunning for an apology...

    Maybe, but it take a while for them to get worked up enough to do anything...

    --
    You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
  31. Re:Surprise, surprise... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's not humor. It's hyperbole intended to inflame and insult people behind what he's complaining about. I'm much more impressed by people who simply state the problem clearly and concisely.

  32. "or later" ... its a blank check ... its a trap ! by perpenso · · Score: 1

    The main problem is that Linus did not take copyright assignments, so it's practially impossible now to relicense the Linux kernel or upgrade it to GPLv3. Therefore, always remember to use "GPLv3 or later" when you release software. The "or later" is really important.

    No, Linus did the right thing. "Or later" is very dangerous, its a blank check, its an unknown, ... its a trap! We have no idea what some future GPL license may include. It may include things that we do not want. As some developers who are staying with gpl 2 intentionally have said about gpl 3.

    That said, the above is off topic. Compiling the kernel with llvm does not change the license of the kernel. A BSD licensed compiler has no effect on GPL licensed source code. The resulting binary derives its license from its source, not the compiler used.

  33. I was moderately amused by the typos by jpellino · · Score: 1

    in the ginned-up outrage over the mis-typed code.

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
    1. Re:I was moderately amused by the typos by VTBlue · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's not ginned up outrage to waste dozens of man hours for someone else's mistake. GCC can be considered a Teir 1 OSS project. For a major point release to have an issue that, if verified, causes the founder of Linux to call it crap, then raw criticism is warranted. Raw, unfiltered , communication amongst trusted engineers leads to better outcome, I have found in my career. Keep the politically correct crap outside of the engineering room.

    2. Re:I was moderately amused by the typos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There is nothing that say you can't be polite and still point out the error.

      I'm lucky that those bugs I handle usally is polite and correct described, happy not having to deal with strong lanague like that.

      Yes, when you have worked for 15 years doing development, you expect to get bug reports on your code, and you expect to find bugs in other peoples code.
      Bug report it, work around it, wait for fix, and take out the workaround. Nothing with it, don't need to use strong language for that.

      Where do you want to work, where you have to ship through alot of strong words to find the error, or where you can read what's the error without strong words?

  34. Strawman argument by SuperBanana · · Score: 0, Troll

    Strawman argument. Nobody except you has posited that "all opinions are valid", and nobody suggested that criticisms can't be made. You invented that position to attack it.

    I specifically said: it's fine to tell people they did something wrong. What you may not do is be abusive.

    1. Re:Strawman argument by NotSanguine · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Strawman argument. Nobody except you has posited that "all opinions are valid", and nobody suggested that criticisms can't be made. You invented that position to attack it.

      I specifically said: it's fine to tell people they did something wrong. What you may not do is be abusive.

      Actually, I can be abusive if I choose to be. It may not win me many friends and it may alienate the ones I do have, but I can certainly do so if I want.

      Whether or not Linus advances Linux because of, or in spite of, being abusive is an open question.

      As Louis Brandeis (and correctly, IMHO) pointed out, "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the process of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    2. Re:Strawman argument by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      Then I'm sure you won't mind when I call you an idiot, because the question is obviously if being abusive is morally correct and helpful. No one's saying you *can't* act like a jerk, they're saying you shouldn't, especially when holding a respected position.

    3. Re:Strawman argument by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Barack Obama's *policies* are terrible and should go back to Africa! Barack Obama's *policies* are the Antichrist. Hey don't look at me like that. I'm abusing the thing, not the person. Just like Linus. The *compiler* never graduated kindergarten.

    4. Re:Strawman argument by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I can be abusive if I choose to be.

      No you cannot. We have extensive laws against it.

    5. Re:Strawman argument by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Linux Thorvalds should be banned from that forum the next time he pulls something like this. If it were me he spoke to that way, I'd smash his teeth in.

    6. Re:Strawman argument by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1, Insightful

      What exactly does 'abusive' mean when a european kernel crafter is accusing a 'free speech' american compiler crafter that his compiler is utter shit?
      Either the compiler is 'utter shit' and the accusation is a fact and proclaiming so is free speech or it is not, then it might be considered 'abusive'.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    7. Re:Strawman argument by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh-huh, sure. I bet every time someone swears about a bug in a piece of software you use, you just reach through the monitor with a baseball bat, dontcha? I mean, it's just such a reasonable, realistic response.

    8. Re:Strawman argument by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, the compiler is an set of instructions for digital computing devices rather than the waste byproduct of biological digestive processes, so...

    9. Re:Strawman argument by Zaelath · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You position holds true when dealing with a small child.

      If some smears his own feces on a wall and they are:
      - 2 years old; you scold them gently and clean them up first, then the wall.
      - 20 years old; yeah... not so much. If a little abuse is all you get you're probably lucky.

      You've asserted several times that people may not be abusive, and other people have run with some kind of silly argument that Linus isn't, but neither your assertion nor their tangent makes you right.

    10. Re:Strawman argument by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reading comprehension: learn it.

    11. Re: Strawman argument by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Linus is a US citizen and resident.

    12. Re:Strawman argument by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, the old may/may not can/can not confusion.

      In case you didn't notice, you didn't reply to what the GP said. You replied to a twisted version of it. A straw man version of it, one might even say.

    13. Re:Strawman argument by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But I am my code.

    14. Re:Strawman argument by rochrist · · Score: 1

      Internet tough guy who is anonymous.

    15. Re:Strawman argument by NotSanguine · · Score: 1

      Actually, I can be abusive if I choose to be.

      No you cannot. We have extensive laws against it.

      How's this? Fuck you. You gonna arrest me now?

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    16. Re:Strawman argument by NotSanguine · · Score: 1

      Ah, the old may/may not can/can not confusion.

      In case you didn't notice, you didn't reply to what the GP said. You replied to a twisted version of it. A straw man version of it, one might even say.

      Your complaint about my word choice is wrong too. Strawman indeed.

      Please carry on and don't take anything I wrote here as an admonition to cease expressing yourself. I would recommend that you give a little more thought to the things you say, folks might take you a bit more seriously if you did.

      Justice Brandeis was and is correct that "... the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    17. Re:Strawman argument by NotSanguine · · Score: 1

      Ah, the old may/may not can/can not confusion.

      In case you didn't notice, you didn't reply to what the GP said. You replied to a twisted version of it. A straw man version of it, one might even say.

      What is more, I replied to SuperBanana's assertion that:

      I specifically said: it's fine to tell people they did something wrong. What you may not do is be abusive.

      Where exactly did I twist things in my response? How is my response a straw man? Perhaps I'm just a bit slow, but I don't get it.

      N.B. This is more rope for you. Please, by all means, take it.

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    18. Re:Strawman argument by NotSanguine · · Score: 1

      Then I'm sure you won't mind when I call you an idiot, because the question is obviously if being abusive is morally correct and helpful. No one's saying you *can't* act like a jerk, they're saying you shouldn't, especially when holding a respected position.

      Please. Speak your mind. If you don't like what I say, say something about it.

      I would point out that context is an important part of any communication. I emphatically did not say that I think being verbally obnoxious, abusive, or as you put it, act like a jerk was a good idea, nor did I advocate it.

      My point, since you obviously didn't get it the first time, was that if you limit one person's expression (whether that be via law, custom, culture or social pressure), you diminish us all, and set a dangerous precedent.

      What is more, your morality is not my morality. Nor is it anyone else's. Morality is our behavior based on the moral choices each of us makes when confronted with a moral choice. That is not a group activity. Each individual must make their own moral choices and be willing to accept responsibility for the actions they take based on their individual moral choices.

      I specifically noted that it is an open question as to whether Linus Torvalds' speech is helpful or not. But it's not my place (nor is it yours or the GP's) to attempt to restrict Mr. Torvalds' freedom of expression. If you don't like what he says, say so. Even better, explain why you don't like it. Perhaps you'll convince him.

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    19. Re:Strawman argument by mike4ty4 · · Score: 1

      Yes, you can be abusive, in the sense that you have the ability to be abusive. It is wrong to be abusive.

      "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the process of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."

      Yup! More logic and arguments, not abuse.

      Actually, given that a KERNEL was being compiled improperly -- a truly VITAL piece of software on which LIVES may depend -- I think he actually did pretty good in that he managed to keep his anger directed squarely at the COMPILER, instead of actually getting abusive with the PEOPLE. Notice that all his "stupid"s and "retarded"s were directed against the compiler! So he wasn't actually abusing any people, rather the poor, poor compiler, which of course has no feelings or human spirit of any sort, being just a pile of digital information on a computer :)

    20. Re:Strawman argument by mike4ty4 · · Score: 1

      If they're 20 years old or older they probably have some kind of mental disorder (or intellectual disability or developmental disability), in which case compassion and getting them proper care for that are the best responses. Or, if they're older, they may be a senior in a nursing home with some kind of dementing disease. In which case they'll probably be already getting care. Or they're having their mind ravaged in prison by a solitary confinement unit and so being made worse by it, in which case $@#! the abusive prison system. Or their parents totally failed at raising them, in which case the anger should go toward the parents, not the victim of the negligence.

      If something "more" than just abuse would include physical violence, then that's criminal and "two wrongs do not make a right".

    21. Re:Strawman argument by Zaelath · · Score: 1

      You have a couple of entertaining alternatives to just "they're a dick", but it's a reach to say you're covering all cases and as such abuse is never an appropriate response.

      As for the "anger towards the parents", if someone assaults me I should go and piss on their ancestor's grave? Exactly how far back do you take the parental responsibility?

      "more" could easily include any number of legal remedies, like getting the cops to beat them up, assuming they're not a mentally disabled octogenarian on the loose from prison.

    22. Re:Strawman argument by aaribaud · · Score: 1

      Ok, parent comment was quite certainly intended as second degree, possibly bait even. Still, it raises a point.

      From anyone else's viewpoint, you are [perceived as] all that you do. People perceive you through your code... and through your attitude about your code... and through your attitude about your attitude... and so on.

      But that's how they perceive you, not necessarily how they evaluate you.

      Now, it is quite understandable to be affected by others' opinion of your code, there's no question about this: that's your work, and people usually do something with the intent that it be well done, so criticism can of course be resented as it points at a failure, and we are taught that failure is bad (which is a mistaken approach IMO, and possibly the reason why many people mistake their own worth with the immediate, first degree, worth of what they do).

      You should make the difference between a criticism of the result of one of your actions and a criticism of your own person (or even a criticism of the way you do things). Heck, if there was no difference, no one on Earth would love, or even like, anyone else, since that would require loving, or at least liking, absolutely everything (s)he does [of course, I am assuming here that most people on Earth actually do like, or even love, someone else; that could be a misperception on my part].

      The difference is that you cannot undo an action of yours, but you can change the way you do things, thus affecting your future actions, and even your future reaction to things, including, yes, criticisms. In coderspeak, this could be expressed as "agile development of your own self". :)

      Long point short: you are not what you code, you are a coder. Keep this difference in mind.

  35. Oh look! Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Linus has become an unbalanced psycho that needs his meds. Really. Grow up, or at least have a nappy change and another prozac
    before turning on the tablet dude.

  36. Or upgrade to llvm ... by voltorb · · Score: 1

    Debian people should probably downgrate their shiny new compiler.

    Or upgrade to llvm. Being above to compile with either gcc or llvm would be a nice option.

    "Update to to icc", that I would understand (for Intel platforms). "Upgrade to LLVM" sounds like this is not coming from a C++ programmer who really cares about the final binary (yes, GCC still produces better binaries is most situations). And given the issue at hand, it seems you're under the delusion that LLVM is bug-free and doesn't miscompile stuff. Yes, LLVM gives prettier error messages. Yes, LLVM code-base is module. Yes, Apple fan boys love it. Yes, it's BSD licensed and plays along nice with people who don't really care about software freedom. Nothing I care about here. But, LLVM codebase is as bug-ridden as GCC or any other codebase, don't pretend otherwise.

  37. Re:Surprise, surprise... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm much more impressed by people who don't post anonymously when critiquing other people's means of communicating.

    (Yes, I know I'm posting anonymously.)

  38. Re:Surprise, surprise... by philip.paradis · · Score: 1

    You seem to be making the implication that it's not okay for Linus to loudly complain about a compiler that produces a broken Linux kernel. Why is that?

    --
    Write failed: Broken pipe
  39. Re:Why does anyone work with this guy? by krelvin · · Score: 1

    Clearly you are not looking in the right places.

  40. Why does anyone work with this guy? by voltorb · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yeah, let's pretend that 80+% of the world isn't using Android, not to mention supercomputers or huge server deployments. What you're missing is not everyone is using an IBM compatible PC and play games whole day in their mom's basement.

  41. Re:Surprise, surprise... by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1

    These days I interpret Linus' "meltdowns" just as some funny nerd rage. He uses that technique to strongly underline the importance of his point, it's never real anger. ....

    It is bullying, plain and simple.

  42. Re:Great. Now the sloth community... by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 2

    Don't worry. The first humans to migrate to North America quickly drove the giant sloths extinct. The remaining sloths are small and harmless.

  43. Well, by gerardrj · · Score: 0

    Since Linus has such a great operating system he should have his own compiler so why's he complaining? Oh, that's right, 95% of what we call an operating system has noting to do with Linux. He was only able to create his kernel because gcc and the GNU project in general had already built all the tools he needed to use and stand on.

    When Linus writes all the subordinate tools, libraries and programs needed for an operating system, then I'll accept his opinion on the quality of any of that.

    --
    Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
    1. Re:Well, by Kremmy · · Score: 1

      Linus has been a user of these tools for decades now. He's one of a select few who have the capability, experience, and understanding necessary to even approach the depth of the bug that they're talking about. He's one of the few who have been heavily relying on them for his entire technology career.
      What I'm saying is that Linus knows his tools. He knows when his tools are need in of repair. He knows what to expect from them and by this point should have a solid understanding of their quirks.
      Sometimes tools don't work how they're supposed to.
      I'm inclined to believe the master woodworker when he tells me his blade is dull and needs to be sharpened.
      I'm inclined to believe the master programmer when he tells me the new version of his compiler is generating incorrect code.
      I'm probably a below average programmer myself, but I've hit enough depth to understand some of the context of this issue. I read through a bit and see them doing the footwork necessary to deal with the issue. That's something I don't see people doing when they're blowing smoke and being bitchy.
      Linus has a bit of an attitude problem. But so does almost everyone else in a position like his, where he is the project leader for something incredibly complex. Like the local event equipment guy who can be a real ass when he's in action, but knows exactly what he is doing, how to do it, why he does it how he does it, how to explain it to his workers, and gets it done on schedule, because he's been doing it for a very long time and lives and breathes the job.

      This is all beside the point, which is that you could only write your post because I previously slept with your mother.

  44. Re:Great. Now the sloth community... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    That was a Goonies reference you dimwit

  45. GCC is shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I've been finding compiler bugs in the last several major releases of GCC, going back about two years now. I've seen a couple of projects simply stop working under new versions of GCC when older GCC versions (and Clang) compile code that runs beautifully. Iv'e brought this up a few times with developers and compiler folks and they all seem to shrug it off. This is why I use Clang almost exclusively these days, GCC is a broken mess.

  46. Re:Surprise, surprise... by gerardrj · · Score: 0

    GCC is open source. If Linus is such a great expert on the issues with it then why isn't he fixing them? Probably because he doesn't have the skills.
    If you don't have the skills to create a compiler or fix a broken one then you have no valid basis for complaining so loudly about the defect in the one you use.

    --
    Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
  47. Re:Why does anyone work with this guy? by epyT-R · · Score: 2

    Nice concern troll.

    Linus is quite lenient compared to the leadership at microsoft or apple. The latter are more interested in appearance than they are in technical excellence because appearance is all that matters when appealing to their non-tech customers. The problems lie where these products must be maintained by technical people for the non technical customer who is usually their boss.

    If you can make a good case for your position/code, linus will listen to you.. If you're full of shit or crying like a bitch because he wont' accept shitty code, then he'll tear you apart. At apple or microsoft, you can be fired for losing a political battle even when being correct. I'd rather work for linus.

  48. Re:Why does anyone work with this guy? by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

    "But Linux is not seeing serious adoption outside of programmers/technical folks. I'm sorry, but it's true; Linux marketshare is nothing."

    Well, you got one and only one thing right. You truly are sorry :-)

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  49. Re:Great. Now the sloth community... by Barny · · Score: 1

    Considering how particular the man is about programming languages, he failed if it was a reference because Sloth was the guy's name (Note: capitalization).

    --
    ...
    /me sighs
  50. Re:Great. Now the sloth community... by mspohr · · Score: 1

    They're too slow for that...

    --
    I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
  51. Re:Great. Now the sloth community... by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    You joke, I know, but they already are. You need only look at the posts here whining about his "tirade" and claiming he is "unprofessional" and questioning why anyone would develop the kernel to see exactly who the sloths are and see them demanding he change his behaviour to cosign their sloth.

    To all of those people, please, please , please do the world a favor and change careers. Seriously. If you can't see why he is 100% right to be outraged at all the time wasted and all the problems caused by the sloth it takes to make this kind of incompetent mistake, just accept the fact that as a software developer you'd make a great janitor and change careers. Let the people who are qualified to do software development work, and accept that you were sold a bill of goods when you were told that computers were where the money was at, and that anyone - even you - could do it. It takes real skills and commitment, and you are destroying the industry with your sub-subpar skills and lack of attention to detail.

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  52. Re: Why does anyone work with this guy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're using a ton of linux loops to get your retarded comment out. Linux is not popular in the desktop. Almost everywhere else it's the norm. Quit being butthurt about some aggressive comments or just shut the fuck up.

  53. Strawman argument by aaribaud · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, if you RTFP, Linus is abusing the *compiler*'s behavior. At no point does he abuse the compiler authors.

  54. Linus should try to find his medication... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nt

  55. Re:Great. Now the sloth community... by MrBigInThePants · · Score: 4, Funny

    No TRUE Slothman would think that funny, laddie!

    (Might as well get the logical fallacies out of the way early...)

  56. Torvalds adjectives are still news? by main911 · · Score: 0

    So Linus Torvalds selection of adjectives to express his disapproval anything ranging from technology to color of his socks is still news-worthy? Aren't we already used and not surprised by that?

  57. Re: Surprise, surprise... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You do realize Linus created Linux right?And you're calling Linus unskilled to be ironic I hope? No one could be that stupid.

  58. Compiling Scribus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    with GCC 4.9.0 reportedly produces a peculiar result: a b/w splash screen (see https://plus.google.com/109612024486187515483/posts/HBhLeap1YY7).

  59. Re:Great. Now the sloth community... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Internalized specieism, you can't even see how the system oppresses you, we're taking away your agency until you can see the truth (ie agree with us)

  60. GCC is Open Source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He doesn't need to rant about it. It's OSS. I've been told repeatedly that one of the great advantages of OSS is that you don't need support - you can just go in and fix it yourself.

    1. Re:GCC is Open Source by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      Try fixing a bug in an OSS project sometimes, if you haven't. It can take ages to familiarize yourself with the project to be able to pinpoint the problem.

    2. Re:GCC is Open Source by mark-t · · Score: 1

      If he hadn't pinpointed the problem, how would he know that gcc was to blame in the first place?

    3. Re:GCC is Open Source by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      Yes, but pinpointing the problem in GCC source code is another story.

    4. Re:GCC is Open Source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How could you not see that I was being exceedingly sarcastic? I mean, really. It's the most pathetic of the claims that the OSS guys always bandy about as to why their software is superior. So, if that's really true, then shouldn't Linus be totally on board with this? He should jump at the chance to fix the problem himself and be a good OSS minion.

    5. Re:GCC is Open Source by 0ld_d0g · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't call "It's somewhere inside this multi-million line code base" as pinpointing the problem. :)

    6. Re:GCC is Open Source by walshy007 · · Score: 1

      If I have a consistent set of conditions that set off the fault, it usually takes me a couple hours to make a fix. Usually it's only some small oss project though, the more popular ones tend to have their stuff a little better in order.

    7. Re:GCC is Open Source by iamacat · · Score: 1

      Yes, but want to bet that the bug ONLY happens with gcc 4.9 is compiled with gcc 4.9?

  61. Linus is just envious because Sloths are cuter by Crashmarik · · Score: 2
  62. Re:Surprise, surprise... by DivineKnight · · Score: 2

    Precisely that...it's a compiler bug. People get real tired of "is it my code, or something else" when things go boom after they hit late 20s...To put things in perspective, if Microsoft shipped a VS update that banjaxxed the C++ compiler under certain conditions (well, more often than it probably already does), developers! developers! developers! everywhere would be looking to BBQ someone alive for that mistake. Yes, mistakes happen. Yes, it's a part of technology. But with unit tests and all this other overhead that programmers are forced to write, these problems are supposed to be disappearing. You're not supposed to suddenly be encountering the equivalent of fairies in your garden. So I have sympathy for the man, and those who have to put of with this stuff. This is a problem that should have been caught long before it made its way to him, and the time he spent trying to figure out whether or not it was his code, his compiler settings, some missed update or flag, possibly a vanilla install, etc. before bringing in even more people to do the same and cover all his bases before screaming at the top of his lungs must have been at least several hours of his time, possibly a few days or a week.

  63. Re: Surprise, surprise... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You do realize Linus created Linux right?And you're calling Linus unskilled

    If the piece of shit known as linus is his creation then yes his is an unskilled hack.

  64. Re:Why does anyone work with this guy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow. So how has it been having worked extensively for Apple, Microsoft, and Linus? You're quite the experienced nerd.

  65. Fuckin' C*nsorship by Kremmy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't understand it anymore. How are we not beyond the need to replace random letters with asterix? I mean honestly, the summary goes on to comment about it. It's a waste of space. Just fucking say it already.

    1. Re:Fuckin' C*nsorship by mark-t · · Score: 2

      It's absolutely a waste of space. The * character uses considerably more real-estate than the letter i, which if drawn without serifs, is possibly the tiniest letter in the alphabet.

    2. Re:Fuckin' C*nsorship by Cabriel · · Score: 1

      As someone pointed out, above: Dumb censors aka Automatic censorship, whether through school/business firewalls or those people who didn't opt out of their ISPs auto-censorship, etc. It's better to throw in the asterisk to reach a wider audience sometimes than to prevent a number of people from being able to load the page.

      Personally, I hate the idea of automatic censorship, but it's not like I can stop it from existing.

    3. Re:Fuckin' C*nsorship by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1

      They both take 8 bits of space which is what REALLY counts.

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    4. Re:Fuckin' C*nsorship by steelfood · · Score: 1

      I see that was your two c*nts.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
  66. Or upgrade to llvm ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Debian people should probably downgrate their shiny new compiler.

    Or upgrade to llvm. Being above to compile with either gcc or llvm would be a nice option.

    "Update to to icc", that I would understand (for Intel platforms). "Upgrade to LLVM" sounds like this is not coming from a C++ programmer who really cares about the final binary (yes, GCC still produces better binaries is most situations). And given the issue at hand, it seems you're under the delusion that LLVM is bug-free and doesn't miscompile stuff.
    Yes, LLVM gives prettier error messages. Yes, LLVM code-base is module. Yes, Apple fan boys love it. Yes, it's BSD licensed and plays along nice with people who don't really care about software freedom. Nothing I care about here. But, LLVM codebase is as bug-ridden as GCC or any other codebase, don't pretend otherwise.

    Actually, you should care. Modular software is more resistant to bugs and easier to maintain. More useful error messages improve developer productivity. More liberal licenses encourage embedding the technology everywhere, which leads to more useful tools, both free and proprietary. It seems that the only thing you actually care about is the execution speed of the generated code, which is essentially the only advantage that GCC and ICC have over Clang/LLVM.

  67. Hey You Guys!!!!!!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Watch me compile this progr346b23567b347b4527b436yudsfthb dr7e58n drub e5
    Error: signal 11: ./test(handler+0x19)[0x400911] /lib64/tls/libc.so.6[0x3a9b92e380] ./test(baz+0x14)[0x400962] ./test(bar+0xe)[0x400983] ./test(foo+0xe)[0x400993] ./test(main+0x28)[0x4009bd] /lib64/tls/libc.so.6(__libc_start_main+0xdb)[0x3a9b91c4bb] ./test[0x40086a]

  68. Re:Surprise, surprise... by Bengie · · Score: 1

    You mean when Tridgdell violated the EULA and illegally accessed the Bitkeeper service with the intent to reverse engineer, when Linus said not to? Tridgdell claims to have done it to help the Linux project by gaining access to meta data not available to the free version of the client, but Linus agreed to the EULA and had access to this information already. Because of Tridgdell's actions, Linus had a large mess to clean up.

  69. Technical Merit really overrated by Crashmarik · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Of the winners in computing, those that won because of technical merit are swarmed by those that won for other reasons.

    I mean just look at some of the match ups
    DOS vs Everything else available ?
    Windows vs Everything else
    Microsoft office vs Everything else
    X86 vs Everything else
    ISA bus vs NuBus vs MCA
    DirectX vs OpenGL

    Technical merit only seems to matter when it completely crushes every other factor as in transistor vs tube, IC vs transistor, CMOS vs TTL.

    1. Re:Technical Merit really overrated by ignavus · · Score: 2

      Of the winners in computing, those that won because of technical merit are swarmed by those that won for other reasons.

      Things win because they are "good enough", for a "reasonable enough" price, at the right time - but it helps if they are being pushed by a ruthless, anti-competitive monster monopoly.

      --
      I am anarch of all I survey.
    2. Re:Technical Merit really overrated by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      There's more than technical merit to every product.
      There's the price, the licensing, the support, the market, plus all these factors applied to dependencies (e.g. hardware your software is meant to run on.)

      Bad management can snuff the most superior technological merit.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    3. Re:Technical Merit really overrated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You meant ARM vs Everthing else

    4. Re:Technical Merit really overrated by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      ISA bus vs NuBus vs MCA

      NuBus was horrendously expensive and fragile, with orders of magnitude less insertion cycles than a cardedge connector. MCA had configuration floppies. ISA was a great bus for a computer of the day, before users needed more bus bandwidth.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:Technical Merit really overrated by smash · · Score: 1

      Yes, technical merit is important, but it is not the most important factor for most software

      In every case you mention, I think you'll find the deciding factor was support. DOS won because it ran on any shitty generic PC clone. Windows won because of software support. Office won due to platform support for integration with other MS products. X86 won due to software support. ISA won due to industry support from multiple vendors. DirectX "won" (well, not really OpenGL is still alive and well for non-windows platforms and killing it in mobile with ES) due to MS platform and developer support.

      Something to note for those in the Linux community who decide to flame people who are just trying to get their shit to work. Support will make or break your product, especially for business. It can have the shiniest bells and most aurally seductive whistles known to man, but if Bob at Initech can't call on someone when it breaks and actually get help, rather than insults, then it will not fly.

      Even worse when the developers are actively hostile to particular classes of user (looking at you, Firefox).

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    6. Re:Technical Merit really overrated by smash · · Score: 1

      No... ISA was a pretty shitty bus even in it's day. Compare to Zorro in the Amiga, which was fully plug and play from the outset.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    7. Re:Technical Merit really overrated by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      No... ISA was a pretty shitty bus even in it's day. Compare to Zorro in the Amiga, which was fully plug and play from the outset.

      Yeah, hindsight is fun. Since Zorro is four years (and change) newer than the ISA bus, there was plenty of it to go around when it was created.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re:Technical Merit really overrated by powerlord · · Score: 1

      You meant ARM vs Everthing else

      Shhhh ... they might not know we're playing the Long Game.

      --
      This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
    9. Re:Technical Merit really overrated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Adam Smith approves this message. Real world, don't.

  70. Gcc 4.9.0 very new by kometen3614 · · Score: 1

    Why would anyone use a new gcc release three months old for critical components?

    --
    When lenity and cruelty play for a kingdom The gentler gamester is the soonest winner
    1. Re:Gcc 4.9.0 very new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it works fine for 99.99% of the world critical components.

    2. Re:Gcc 4.9.0 very new by dmpot · · Score: 2

      Why would anyone use a new gcc release three months old for critical components?

      The bug was introduced in gcc 4.5.0 (which was released in April 2010), so it took 4 years with active use of gcc before kernel developers could pintpoint the cause of some strange kernel crashes.

      So how long are we supposed to wait before using a new GCC release?

  71. Not all means of expression are valid & equal by Geof · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Your argument applies to itself. You are accusing people of abdicating judgment: your solution is to not judge Linus! Furthermore, you are confusing criticism of the messenger with criticism of the message; as SuperBanana points out, this is a straw man argument.

    Not all opinions are valid and equal: nor are all means of expressing them. We have the right to speak freely; we also have the right to judge such speech as invalid or unacceptable. I suggest this right to judge is in fact an obligation. Silence implies consent. Abusive behavior should be called out. You may argue that Linus was not abusive, but to argue that we should never make such judgments in the first place is to fall prey to the false equivalence you decry.

  72. Pretty much guarentee... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...that the problem's in the C++ new code added.

    Not trying to start a flame war, but I've seen more politically perfect C++
    code that couldn't count to 10 in an unrolled loop if its life depended on it.

  73. Re:Surprise, surprise... by jones_supa · · Score: 1

    GCC is open source. If Linus is such a great expert on the issues with it then why isn't he fixing them? Probably because he doesn't have the skills.

    You can't just go and fix every program, even if they are open source. It takes a lot of time to familiarize one with the code base. That is probably limiting Linus here too. His bug report is very precise, and that will greatly ease the job of the GCC developer who actually fixes the bug.

  74. GCC 4.5.0 or latter is "terminally broken" by dmpot · · Score: 2

    https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/s...

    GCC 4.5.0 was released in April 2010, so I wonder how many kernel oops it has caused.

  75. Re:Why does anyone work with this guy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not just apple or microsoft. And not just corporations. If they are sleazy and they are smart, they can benefit from pushing what is wrong.

  76. Another tantrum... yawn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh look, little Linus is having another tantrum.

  77. Re:Great. Now the sloth community... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More like r/programming. I really enjoy reading news from days ago on slashdot.

  78. Re: Surprise, surprise... by amiga3D · · Score: 1

    And what's your great creation oh Anonymous one? Despite your mindless drivel few doubt Linus Torvalds' ability. Some do disagree with his methods and attitude. Just because you lack the intelligence to understand his accomplishments doesn't diminish them.

  79. Re:Surprise, surprise... by amiga3D · · Score: 1

    I think the invective is meant to motivate the developer but some people don't respond well to nastiness.

  80. Unittest by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

    GCC had a bug that wasn't covered by their unittests.
    Linux had a bug that wasn't covered by their unittests
    According to Linus, only one of these two is retarded, can you guess which?

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
  81. Re:Great. Now the sloth community... by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

    If only there were a dedicated community for every sad sloth, or at least an anagram thereof.

    (If you either feel for the sloths, or just appreciate the pun, please send a random amount of slothcoins to SML12GaoebyneT7ctYuj9PFicptetjPUct. Thank you.)

    --
    Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
  82. Re:Surprise, surprise... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did Tridgell sign up to a EULA?

    Does Linus dictate to everyone in the IT industry what they can't do?

  83. Re:Surprise, surprise... by jones_supa · · Score: 1

    Yeah, that can be a slight problem... :)

  84. Re:Surprise, surprise... by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 1

    This is probably a bad example because the end result was the invention of Git, and so you'd have a hard time these days convincing people that Tridgdell's actions had a bad outcome.

  85. Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but...ppl by VTBlue · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm super tired of this BS argument. I'm sick and tired of high performing professional being criticized for expecting high standards from others. Not every job requires or should have an abstraction layer of "people development," "life coaching," or professional courtesy and pleasantries. Some jobs, the jobs that truly change of course of human events requires breathtaking sacrifice, most significantly of all, putting aside ones ego when called out. If someone calls me an idiot for being wrong, whether justified or not, I'm still wrong and I accept it. If my performance is so shoddy that I get called out as incompetent, than an introspective person should have the maturity to realize that he or she caused such frustration to the other person that such words were uttered. To be able to take this is the sign of a true professional and leader. If you can't take the heat, just GTFO of the way, and go work at a Fortune 500 with regular white collar people with thin skin.

  86. Torvalds has become an idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No matter how great was the inspiration in 1991, his current thinking has degenerated to imbecilic. When he relies on disparaging the intellectually disabled to make a point ("We're talking "sloth that was dropped on the head as a baby" level retardation levels here ..."), he has shown himself to be intellectually bankrupt.

  87. Re:Great. Now the sloth community... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    good for you, uncle tom.

  88. And PLEASE don't tell Kristin Bell about this by jpellino · · Score: 1

    ... on second thought, maybe her outrage (see her up against paparazzi) is just what Linus needs.

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
  89. Was the word "shit" not graphic enough? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did you have to adorn it with a stylized anus?

  90. Re:Actually, I can be abusive if I choose to be. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No you can't, because the existence of abuse is dependant on the perceptions of person who believes they have been abused. It is not possible to abuse a rational person, you are simply correct or incorrect in your claims and they way you package the data is just a question of efficiency.

    So has Linus made and incorrect claim and or done so inefficiently? I'd say no, the message was accurate, clear and memorable.

    If people feel that Linus is being abusive they are in the wrong industry, or they can go and write their own OS, cuddlinix.

  91. Re:Why does anyone work with this guy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To Paraphrase Linus himself "my single biggest personal failure is that I wrote Linux to be a desktop replacement and it has almost no market share in desktop consumers."

    Oh and soon after he says "pre-installed consumer systems would be the greatest Linux desktop improvement"

    Please note android (Linux OS ) is pre-installed and they had 900,000+ new android devices come online every day for a pretty long while ;-)

  92. Strawman argument by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I specifically said: it's fine to tell people they did something wrong. What you may not do is be abusive.

    Why? Because you say so? It is within his right to be abusive.

  93. Already fixed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Probably because Linus called them out so brusquely.

  94. Another Strawman Arguement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Way to respond (1) is a strawman argument. No insight there. Read the original post:

    http://lkml.iu.edu//hypermail/linux/kernel/1407.3/00650.html

    Does Linus call anybody names or wish their children ill will? No.

    Does the original poster make a compilation of phrases, subtracting all of the technical content? Absolutely.

    So stick to the context of what he actually said and make a legitimate criticism.

  95. Stupid fuck this by aNonnyMouseCowered · · Score: 1

    " How could a stupid cunt like you even bother posting such a moronic comment? Seriously, go die in a fire and I hope your kids get leukemia. Only someone with severe autism and Down's syndrome would be so clueless about psychology."

    But Linus, despite the vulgarity of some of his rants, doesn't use language like that. Unless you can provide a link to prove otherwise, Linus hasn't used terms that poke fun at people with disabilities ("autism") or used sexist language ("cunt"). He does use generic terms of abuse like shit and fuck, which doesn't really qualify as sexist since it can both men and women (and homosexuals) fuck.

  96. Idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "("pure and utter sh*t," only with no asterisk)"

    Then why did you put an asterisk there, you stupid fucking faggot? This is the Internet, not a preschool.

  97. Re:Great. Now the sloth community... by Rich0 · · Score: 1

    If you can't see why he is 100% right to be outraged at all the time wasted and all the problems caused by the sloth it takes to make this kind of incompetent mistake, just accept the fact that as a software developer you'd make a great janitor and change careers.

    You're equating personality with skill. I can behave like an asshole while being completely incompetent, or I can behave like a nice person while being competent, or anything in-between. Aggressiveness and competency are orthogonal.

  98. Re: I was moderately abused by the typos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Amuse is everywear in politics. Turnkey tyranny of the typos.

  99. Re:Great. Now the sloth community... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I, for one, welcome our new sloth overlords.

  100. Strawman argument by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Why on earth do you think you have any right to tell him how he should conduct himself?

  101. Just move to LLVM and clang for Pete's sake and st by Celarent+Darii · · Score: 2

    Linus is right, GCC is braindead. Its code is purposely opaque and has huge maintenance problems. This is not the first time GCC is the source of suffering. I remember the bug in 2.95 causing all sorts of grief.

    It would be interesting if the kernel devs switched to clang like FreeBSD has done. Even just the threat of doing so could give at least a good rivalry and competition usually means the one who improves the fastest will survive.

  102. Re:Surprise, surprise... by Sun · · Score: 1

    Yes. That's the one I mean.

    Linus's decision to go with a proprietary solution for such a central free software project was wrong to begin with. Linus took a huge presumption, agreeing to a EULA on behalf of the entire community. As such, it was Linus's own mess he had to clean up. I think the passage of time only shows that more clearly.

    Shachar

  103. use icc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Linux version 3.16.0-rc4 (christian@localhost.localdomain) (icc version 14.0.2 (gcc version 4.8.0 compatibility
    )) #2 Fri Jul 25 18:14:26 EDT 2014
      KERNEL supported cpus:
        Intel GenuineIntel

  104. Unsurprising and Hypocritical by multimediavt · · Score: 1

    1. The Linux community has been elitist and abusive since it began. Why is Linus's "tirade" anything new, unexpected, or outside the norm of the community that has taken pride in its arrogance and mean, nasty treatment of anyone daring to ask a legitimate question about something related to Linux and its underpinnings?

    2. Words exist for a reason, even the "abusive" ones. They convey meaning that cannot be properly conveyed by using other words; it's why they're in our lexicon to begin with! If you have to sugar coat things and dance around the issue then you are only beleaguring a point. Having said that do I believe that Linus was NOT out of bounds in this case ... YES!

    3. I think there was a comment above that said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." I don't think anyone that does development work hasn't had a tirade like that, unless they're über pious or something. It's easy to armchair quarterback and snipe from the bushes on the Internet where no one knows your own prior workplace behavior for reference. Don't throw asteroids when you're standing in a glass cathedral! This is aimed at you SuperBanana...

  105. Re:"or later" ... its a blank check ... its a trap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The resulting binary derives its license from its source, not the compiler used.

    Until you build something that doesn't allow you to license the runtime libraries without bringing the entire executable under the same license.

  106. Re:"or later" ... its a blank check ... its a trap by perpenso · · Score: 1

    The resulting binary derives its license from its source, not the compiler used.

    Until you build something that doesn't allow you to license the runtime libraries without bringing the entire executable under the same license.

    That's not the compiler, and that doesn't happen with bsd licensed tools/libs.

  107. Let's try an offline example by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Let's try an offline example
    To welder: That joint is unacceptable.
    Welder: laughs - just sign it off loser.
    The situation then does not resolve until someone has the guts to try another approach.



    Approach 2
    To welder: Your weld is fucked. I can stick a fucking ruler 50mm into this enormous fucking crack here.
    Welder now gets that the situation is being seen as serious and can not just be fobbed off.

    Sometimes you just get ignored if you do not use appropriate language to convey how serious a situation is.

  108. question of culture and honesty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I did read the whole gcc bug thread, and, i mean torvalds tracked the error down, reading, debugging x86 assembly, quite a messy thing to do out of free time. I wouldn't trade torvalds (deliciously funny) honesty for any professionalism bul..
    Is the guy a bilionair sold-out sc.. Or an honest, hardworking real geek wich does not give a ff. About money-soaked corporate culture of professionalism. I'd personally live to be flamed by torvalds, i would feel treated like equal, for a very simple reason, a real coder flames himself many times a day. I have no doubt torvalds flamed himself as hard when he debugs its own code. People are just too self-centred to understand how fun it is to flame a bug that took you a great effort to trap in a corner.

    I flamed myself countless times, flamed code i used countless times, but i love my fellow coders and hackers.

  109. Let's see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Let's see:
    (1) Microsoft had one guy who dumped on people by calling them "random" (kind of a great insult, actually) and another guy who threw chairs. Dipstick score: 2 Results: tops in their industry.

    (2) Apple has a massive "motivator", spelled a-s-s-h-o-l-e, tolerating zero garbage and pushing coders harder than Cleopatra pushed rowers. Dipstick score: 1 Results: biggest and most profitable company, period.

    (3) Linux exists at all, despite being given away for free, decades after it was introduced. It is ubiquitous, runs on mainframes and thimbles, and more cell phones than iOS. Chief penguinisto occasionally says "This crap tastes like crap." Dipstick score: 0 Results: most improbably popular free code ever.

    Seems like 2014 just might have been the year of Linux on the desktop if Linus had taken some chair-throwing, and stock-option-hoarding lessons from his peers.

    1. Re:Let's see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >seems like 2014 just might have been the year of Linux on the desktop if Linus had taken some chair-throwing,

      Youre are a fucking moron whose whore of a mother should have aborted you! Do us all a favour and kill yourself.
      Hey! Youre right, this feels really good. I think Ill try this at work.

      Desktop Linux will never arrive simply because of money and business interests that is not there.
      If someone like Google comes around with plenty of money, business need and ways to make money, then you have an Android.
      But the idea that a good product will beat out another based on merit is simply idiotic. MS spends BILLIONS on advertising alone which is a sum Ubuntu couldnt make in 1000 lifetimes. I know a lot of smart engineers that spend a fortune on Monster cables, not because they were good but because they heard of them.
      Desktop Linux wasnt going to come based on Bob and Doug installing Linux on their grandmas desktop. It was going to happen with LOTS of money behind it.
      You know, the way Google did with Android.

    2. Re:Let's see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (1) 1st to the desktop
      (2) 1st to the smartphone
      (3) 1st to the free unix-like OS

      being an ahole doesn't guarantee success. But being 1st does--and luck is usually 50% of that equation. I find being an ahole doesn't sustain a company for more than the lifetime of their creator. Where do you think MS, Apple are headed? What's going to happen when Linus retires--I'm sure a new OS will popup and everyone will bail faster than the titanic sank. Why? Cause the community stuck with open standards in linux at least.

    3. Re:Let's see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, fuckface...he DOES do asshole things just like the rest of them- and it's part of the reason WHY it's where it is.

      But then...you're clearly someone enjoying having their head up their ass...

      (I'm brushing up on being an Asshole. Going to be executive management again soon...need to get that edge back on... Happy to oblige you dicknose...)

    4. Re:Let's see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what do basically all three cases have in common?

      They were part of the it/internet revolution that changed the world and people were willing to work for free for them, because they wanted to be part of this.
      In other words they had a huge supply of over motivated staff. This is a very priviliged situation and this style of managment works under this conditions (same in science, art, entertainment industrie). The people want to work in those industries so hard that they accept the bullshit.

      But what happens if the hype is over? Suddenly all the good people move away to more interesting projects, because they do not want to deal with the bullshit anymore or you have to pay them significantly above their market value.

      I have seen places, that were managed like you describe, dying in less then 6 months, because the "magic faded away" and people noticed it is just a (bad) job.

      Linux should be more grateful that he has the privilege to stand on the shoulders of all those "giants" that maintain gcc and he should be aware of the fact that there are other unixoid kernels which might be the next hype just tomorrow.

  110. That one was fully justified by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Linus blowing up at Andrew Tridgdell for "reverse engineering" the bitkeeper protocol comes to mind.

    Since it meant that Linus had to go and spend time writing git after bitkeeper was taken away from him due to that licence violation he had a very good reason to be angry.
    Do you think the GPL is the only licence that should be respected?

    1. Re:That one was fully justified by Sun · · Score: 1

      I think Linus should respect the community. Just because Linus thought a certain compromise was okay doesn't mean he is allowed to make that compromise in the name of the entire community.

      Tridge owed Linus nothing, and Linus' entitled response was arrogant and out of place.

      I have no idea why you brought the GPL into it. It doesn't matter which free software license the Linux revision control would be under, so long as it is free software. Going proprietary for such infrastructure opens the community up for precisely the sort of danger that actually did end up happening. You cannot yank your software if it's free, regardless of what license it's under.

      Shachar

  111. great analogy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A bug is like a brainfart, torvalds is the guy who will find hilarious words to describe how much it stinks. Do you feel guilty your farts stinks? Most of us do. Should we? Nooo! A fart is a natural thing. As natural and smelly as stupid error in your source code.

  112. its not just a mistake. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    compilers are what we depend on for software to work properly. software is all around us in the modern world, running everything from water treatment plants to medical devices. errors in a compiler are a huge problem. people are getting payed to maintain those compilers and that is also a problem. there are ways to catch errors like this in compilers before shipping them (regression testing) and that is also a problem that this wasnt done.

    maybe linus doesnt express himself the best, but if nobody said anything, it would be bad as well, because the compiler authors are abusing the public trust.

  113. shipping a broken compiler is also abusive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so here we are just one big dysfunctional open source family.

  114. Re:Great. Now the sloth community... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'm a sloth and I'm too lazy to demand an apology.

  115. its actually almost nothing like saying the n word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but uhm. yeah. there is a huge difference between a swear word thats been used for a thousand years or so, and a racial slur that has particular connotations from the last 200.

  116. It's a bug. Squash it. by jpellino · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Actually, "in the engineering room" he sang a different tune: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/s...

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
  117. Nobody owes anyone anything in that case by dbIII · · Score: 2

    Tridge owed Linus nothing

    Does it matter? What matters is that Tridge fucked around and violated the licence and the fallout hit Linus in the form of having to do a lot of unnecessary work. Being only human this appeared to have made him angry.

    I have no idea why you brought the GPL into it

    Try reading the above post entire instead of key words then. It's only three lines long. I can wait.
    If you use software it's only fair to stick to the licence the creator wished you to use - if you don't like it use something else.

    You cannot yank your software if it's free, regardless of what license it's under

    If someone violates the terms of your licence of course you can.

    1. Re:Nobody owes anyone anything in that case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whether or not it's legal or enforceable in any given jurisdiction, "no reverse engineering for interoperability" is inherently unethical, period.

  118. Re:Great. Now the sloth community... by metrix007 · · Score: 1

    People only need to look at your post history to see more often than not you don't know what your talking about, and you're certainly not in any position to admonish others.

    If Linus does have a point, he can make it professionally instead of ranting like a scorned child. If he isn't capable that, than he isn't qualified to lead.

    --
    If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
  119. Re:Great. Now the sloth community... by mindwhip · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm a laddie and I find your post offensive!

    --
    [The Universe] has gone offline.
  120. kindergarten by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "shouldn't have been allowed to graduate from kindergarten"

    I thought he was talking about college degrees in some 3rd world countries. LOL

  121. Re:Surprise, surprise... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah me too. Only thing is, I've never seen one. It's all noise and little signal. Stating things clearly and concisely doesn't get the problem fixed. Linus is in a position where he know him acting like an asshole will get the attention to the problem. He is a hardcore pragmatic, he's just using the quickest way available to get the problem sorted out. Now even I know about the said problem, and the last time I have compiled (well ,tried to) linux kernel was ten years ago.

  122. it's your choice, but you might reconsider by Chirs · · Score: 1

    I did mostly linux kernel stuff for over a decade. The vast majority of developers are quite helpful to people with little history in the community. As others have pointed out, generally this sort of stuff is aimed at people/projects that have a history of good work and then fall short of expectations.

    If you submit a patch (formatted as per instructions) to the list, generally it will either get ignored (in which case you might want to contact the maintainer for that area) or else you will get some comments. Note that not eveyone's comments count equally--ultimately the subsystem maintainer is the one that will apply the change.

  123. Re:Surprise, surprise... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So if you are given a brand new car and its engine explodes while you're driving to work and thus you're late it's bullying to call that engine a broken piece of shit?

  124. No, he used a regular expression by tigersha · · Score: 1

    He said multiple things. /sh*t/ matches sht, shht, shhht, shhhht, shhhhhhhhhhhhhhht

    and an infinity of variants on the theme.

    No cussing here.

    --
    The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
    1. Re:No, he used a regular expression by hey! · · Score: 1

      He said multiple things. /sh*t/ matches sht, shht, shhht, shhhht, shhhhhhhhhhhhhhht

      and an infinity of variants on the theme.

      No cussing here.

      ...or if he's using shell style wildcards, he could mean "pure and utter sherbet."

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  125. Instead of living in fear ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Instead of living in fear sometimes the abused rise up and eliminated the abuser.

    Karma is a bitch.

    ironic captcha: ambush

  126. "Secondarily" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LOL. You idiot.

  127. I wonder how many by MouseTheLuckyDog · · Score: 0

    of the people criticizing Linux even know what spilling is?

    1. Re:I wonder how many by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is spilling a technical compiler issue for which the only rational response is being an abusive asshole? I'm pretty sure we would have problems with abusive assholery regardless of the topic involved.

  128. Re:Surprise, surprise... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    GCC deserves to die.

    Are you a compiler expert? Have you written even a single optimizing compiler in your life? If you killed yourself nobody would care because you have not contributed anything of value.You're just another idiot blabbering about things they don't know shit about.

  129. Re:Surprise, surprise... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it's so shit why doesn't Linus switch to something other compiler?
    Oh that's right, there isn't one.

  130. Smaller c compilers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is why smaller c compilers pcc/tcc (and hopefully tcc) should get more attention.

  131. What an article! by drolli · · Score: 1

    I would be very pleased if the people posting 3 line articles to slashdot would take the time to follow the thread on the mailing list long enough to understand what its all about. It's informative and you learn something about the world.

    Beforehand i did not knwo about the red zone, and it sounds like something which i would like to turn off by default, but i more or less understand it's meaning in optimizing the performance of an ABI.

    If you follow the thread, it deems only to happen an specific optimization settings Everybody knows that at high optimization settings the assembly output of you compiler may differ significantly from how it looked before, should look, is expected to look like, or even is specified to look like.

    I hope that they isolated a test case from this issue.

    I hope that more conservative distros compile the kernel using more conservative settings and more conservative compilers.

  132. Re:Surprise, surprise... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... because he should really write his own compiler. ;-)

  133. I'd bet Linus is fully right on this one. by Qbertino · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Seriously, the GCC is a prestige project just like the kernel. You have to have the basics of your particular software development field down, otherwise you have no business whatsoever lost in these projects. I don't know the details and I certainly can't judge them, but from the broad perspective it seems like somebody did something akin to not avalidating and filtering your input or pushing windows-1252 but presenting it as UTF-8 or something in webdevelopment and it passed all the way through evaluation, testing, merging, release management, etc. right into the final GCC release. Which does reflect on to the entire team and project.

    Bottom line: When Linus has released rants like these in the past he usually was spot on and dead right. The GCC has gotten some flak for it's shittyness lately, and it looks like they haven't improved their process much yet.

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
  134. Re:Great. Now the sloth community... by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

    No. I'm saying that outrage is something a competent person would experience, and "What's the big deal; why are you being mean?" is something a, shall we say, less than competent person would think. If you really think he was being "abusive" than you literally have noconcept of truly abusive behavior.

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  135. Re:Why does anyone work with this guy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apart from the Android-being-Linux and many server out there running on Linux (not to talk about the mainframes and other super-computers, most of which run Linux) points made elsewhere, Linus looks to you like a tyrannical guy because you only read about him once in a while on Slashdot and of course Slashdot only talks about his few rants, often quoted out of any meaningful context.

    That and he's also a benevolent dictator. OSS is not a democracy. (yeah, go on, quote *that* out-of-context).

  136. Re:Great. Now the sloth community... by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

    "People only need to look at your post history to see more often than not you don't know what your talking about, and you're certainly not in any position to admonish others."

    Great tactic. There's only one problem. It is not actually possible to look at someone's post history*, which is clearly what you are counting on. I can assure you I am proved correct multiple times on a daily basis. I am also wrong from time to time, naturally. The next time you want to try and prove me wrong, go for it. I look forward to it.

    * Looking at the last 25 posts does not equate to looking at ones post history. The "history" will change between now and noon.

    For extra laughs, random post I looked at from your comments page. ROTFLMAO

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  137. Re:Just move to LLVM and clang for Pete's sake and by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It would be interesting if the kernel devs switched to clang

    Hey, why stop there? I bet it would really send a message if you did kernel development in Visual Basic.

  138. Re:Surprise, surprise... by Bengie · · Score: 2

    It was never brought to court, but the very real reality is that he accessed a server and explicitly accessed a server after being told not to with the intention of committing a very likely copyright infringement, all in the "name" of Linux. Linus was not happy with this.

  139. Re:Surprise, surprise... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

    The end does not justify the means.

    Also, was causing the creation of Git some kind of grand scheme by Tridgdell? If it was an accident, he shouldn't get credit for it.

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  140. Re:Great. Now the sloth community... by Immerman · · Score: 1

    Perhaps, but I'm less convinced of the orthogonality of aggressiveness and managing the contributions of geeks with large egos.

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  141. Re:"or later" ... its a blank check ... its a trap by Immerman · · Score: 1

    Indeed.
    GPLv666: Stallman is dead and all your code now belongs to Microsoft.

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  142. Torvalds is correct... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    GCC was great. It allowed the world to do great things. Now it's turned to poo and deserves derision. This problem will get fixed. But if this is indicative of how low the standards have slipped, we need a new alternative fast. Yes, the Linux kernel has had problems. The Kernel is NOT a compiler. BIG DIFFERENCE.

  143. Re:Great. Now the sloth community... by Rich0 · · Score: 1

    Perhaps, but I'm less convinced of the orthogonality of aggressiveness and managing the contributions of geeks with large egos.

    Many corporations are governed by aggressive managers. For some reason people equate assertiveness and competence - it probably has to do with some part of our brain we share in common with wolves. Many have argued that this sort of thing is what causes many established companies to fail.

  144. Re:Surprise, surprise... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unless if you actually need a change in a version since the problem appeared. Then it is pretty literally the end of the world.

  145. Help! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please could somebody help me! What does "sh*t" mean? I'm really confused! It's just posted there with no explanation or footnote - as though anyone capable of reading Slashdot in the first place would somehow magically know what it means!

  146. Welcome to the LinusT show... by Stolpskott · · Score: 1

    There is an article on /. every few months, about how Linus Torvalds was abrasively to-the-point about something, or about how a kernel developer responded to a Linus abrasive episode with a "dude, not helpful, be nice..." reasoned argument.
    From my recollection, Torvalds does not often get involved beyond the initial message, but when he does I seem to recall that his response is "My sand pit, my rules. You don't like it, go make your own."
    While the GCC compiler may not be a part of his Linux sand pit, it does go a long way toward defining the quality of the executable it produces, so even if the code is perfect a shit compiler will still produce a shit executable, in the same way that a perfect compiler will produce a shit executable from shit code. The difference is that a shit compiler cannot produce a good executable, whereas the shit code can be improved to good code with time and effort, and if a coder whose executable ends up being shit tries to turn around and blame the compiler, everyone else is going to respond with "bad workman always blames his tools, therefore the code is shit".

    99 times out of 100, the code is shit, because generally the compiler devs are much better coders [citation needed] than the rest of us mortals, so we probably assume that executable errors are introduced in our code (or is it just that I am a crap programmer??).

  147. Clang/LLVM Now? by OneFlame · · Score: 0

    Maybe Linus should try compiling with Clang instead? :)

    For what its worth, I hope this illustrates the necessity of Linux being able to be compiled by multiple tool chains. . Who knows maybe even in a few years, (decades), MSFT's C++ compiler---nah ...

    I think it would be awesome if this resulted somehow in make being dropped ... Seriously. Why are we still using that? Headers? And ... And ... Okay, that's a whole different topic...

  148. non sequisquirrel by Thud457 · · Score: 2

    You're at the club and some jackass compiler spills variables all over your girlfriend? Of course you're gonna be an asshole and get in their face. It doesn't matter how many optimizations he has turned on.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  149. Re:Just move to LLVM and clang for Pete's sake and by OneFlame · · Score: 0

    There are quite a few Clang efforts to compile Linux ... I hope this brings more awareness to those efforts. Perhaps this is Linus' intention?

  150. Metaphors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One thing is for certain: Linus is good with the metaphors.

  151. The engineering world by MZM · · Score: 1

    Some how, your boss can compare your job to a baby with retardation issues, but hey!! It gets the work done and thats the most important part!! and is Linus, he always talk like that which is ok; and the most important part is that he is talking about the job and not you or the group who did it, and that is a huuuuuge difference in that.

  152. *barely* legal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Linus also used the phrase "*barely* legal" in the text, so between that, sloth, and the compiler code, it's going to be interesting seeing how his post shows up in search engines from now on.

  153. Re:Great. Now the sloth community... by ultranova · · Score: 1

    It is not actually possible to look at someone's post history*, which is clearly what you are counting on.

    Just google site:slashdot.org "Zero__Kelvin (151819)".

    Oh, I'm sorry, let me translate... "Don't you know how to motherfucking google, pinhead?" Was that correct? Does it need more fucks? Should I use "moron" instead? My Tough Nerd is a bit rusty.

    --

    Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  154. Re:Great. Now the sloth community... by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

    You obviously didn't actually try that, or you would know that it doesn't work. Idiot.

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  155. Re: Great. Now the sloth community... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    haha I wish I had mod points for you kelvin. you smacked him down and it made me bust out laughing. ultra(the guy you replied to) is one of those people mentioned in an above post who need to get the fuck out of our fucking industry. to many fucks? too bad because 0 fucks are given.

  156. Re:Why does anyone work with this guy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, let's pretend that 80+% of the world isn't using Android

    You do realize that Android sits on top of the linux kernel, no?

  157. Re:Great. Now the sloth community... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A sloth wouldn't have gotten the first post!

  158. Re:Actually, I can be abusive if I choose to be. by NotSanguine · · Score: 1

    No you can't, because the existence of abuse is dependant on the perceptions of person who believes they have been abused. It is not possible to abuse a rational person, you are simply correct or incorrect in your claims and they way you package the data is just a question of efficiency.

    So has Linus made and incorrect claim and or done so inefficiently? I'd say no, the message was accurate, clear and memorable.

    If people feel that Linus is being abusive they are in the wrong industry, or they can go and write their own OS, cuddlinix.

    An excellent point, which fits nicely with the claim that the remedy is more speech, not censorship. And "Political Correctness" is a framework for cultural censorship.

    That's not to say that I think courtesy and politeness are passe. Quite the contrary, in fact. However, Linus has continued to speak plainly, does not suffer fools gladly, and generally embeds (at least IME) his sharp (and often salty) comments in a matrix of humor and good sense.

    --
    No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
  159. The AMD-deoptimizing Intel compiler? by phorm · · Score: 1

    Ah yes, the Intel compiler. Wasn't that also known as the compiler that "cripplied" performance for many AMD systems, by ignoring capabilities flags and instead looking for a "GenuineIntel" processor...

    Yeah, that sounds like a great alternative to GCC.

    See also many other links. I'll stick with GCC, thanks. At least the GCC team doesn't have a vested interest in f***ing over other hardware vendors.

  160. Go KILL YOURSELF is to the point. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sometimes an ass is just an ass.
    But when that a-hole is powerful or rich or famous, then its ok.

    Kill Yourself NOW are the words of an asshole.

    PS: his bug report btw was perfectly courteous so he does know how to behave when he wants to.

  161. Re:Great. Now the sloth community... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good boy Laddie!

  162. Classic timing by Uber+Homme · · Score: 1

    No better time to dump on a project than when it receives an award of academic recognition, lol: http://rhelblog.redhat.com/201...

  163. Torvalds needs to get his mouth washed out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sick of this guy and his shitty OS. Sure it was great when it came out, but thanks to this bozo and his groupies, BSD doesn't get the driver support that it deserves.

    Linux on the Desktop is a real joke. Fucking ubuntu, mimicking Mac OS X and fucking Redhat, mimicking Windows.

  164. Re:Just move to LLVM and clang for Pete's sake and by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We can't. Even LLVM trunk is still quite distant from gcc at producing good machine code from the Linux kernel source. And that's the same gcc that Linus (and even some gcc guys) regularly go to town critisizing for weird, bad, and sometimes even outright stupid code generation (note: this does not mean *broken* code generation).

    LLVM is not ready for that yet.

  165. Re:Great. Now the sloth community... by metrix007 · · Score: 1

    No, you're generally proved incorrect and are just too arrogant to realize it.

    Your post history is available at http://slashdot.org/~Zero__Kelvin, FYI.

    And yes, that is post history, and no, it isn't limited to your last 25 posts.

    Here you can see your posts 10 pages in : http://slashdot.org/users2.pl?page=10&uid=151819&view=userhomepage&fhfilter=%22home%3AZero__Kelvin%22

    And that argument with Xest? Idiot armchair lawyer didn't understand the law as much as he thought he did. I showed him to be wrong, but he just couldn't listen.

    Ahh, I love arrogant IT people who can't admit when they're wrong. It's just so amusing.

    --
    If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
  166. Serious question by Xaedalus · · Score: 1

    In my experience, harsh language is best tempered (and employed) by someone who uses it to judge the situation and provide correction, in such a manner as to insure it doesn't happen again. The language used gets as personal as it needs to, and no further. Ideally, no personal attacks would be used, just a critique of the work. And if that person who employed it happened to be in the wrong, they apologize. Does Linus acknowledge his own mistakes? And, if Linus goes over the line, does he acknowledge and apologize for it? If he does, then he'd be someone I'd want to work for--because I know that the occasional negative reinforcement would be beneficial and it's not personal. From what I understand, Steve Jobs was that way at Apple: a giant asshole, but capable of admitting when he was wrong, and backing his team to the fullest.

    --
    Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
  167. Yeah, so? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Linus is unhappy with something he cares about. Having a bad compiler isn't just a bug, it's a bug everyone is going to get bit by. It's like giving a kid a live hand grenade. Linus is just saying in a very colorful but justified manner that we can't release compilers like this.

    Look what Heartbleed just put us through. People depend on these devices we all use to work correctly. A big deal should be made over problems like this, so we all, as developers, remember that getting our work done right is important.

  168. Re:Great. Now the sloth community... by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

    "Here you can see your posts 10 pages in : http://slashdot.org/users2.pl?...

    Congratulations on finally having something to add in a Slashdot thread!

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  169. If it's in the licence you are stuck with it by dbIII · · Score: 1

    If it's in the licence you are stuck with it - GPL or anything else.
    Some people have argued that that the GPL is unreasonable because it insists you shouldn't just cut and paste the code, put your own name on it, and then use it in a closed source project. Whether you feel entitled to other people's stuff or not the price of admission is sticking to whatever terms the code is licenced under, whether that is not being allowed to rip off the code and call it yours or in the other case not allowed to reverse engineer the application. Whether it's not against the law is irrelevant - it's like "no shoes no service", the vendor gets to cut off service if you break their terms of service even if you are not breaking the law.

  170. taking things out of context by SuperBanana · · Score: 1

    I replied to someone who said that "his manner is coarse." They were speaking of Linus's general manner, not his specific conduct in this particular case. Linus has a long history of name-calling, mocking, ridiculing, etc. So no, I have not "just learned to read recently" (hello, abuse.) You, apparently, are unaware of something called "context"

    1. Re:taking things out of context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Linus' general manner is supportive and helpful.

      Supportive and helpful accounts for 99.999% of his posts on the kernel mailing lists.

      The rest is reacting to stupid people doing stupid things.

      You can't treat the Linux kernel as an in house project because so many people and so many corporations contribute. You need a strong, no-bullshit personality to keep it afloat.

  171. You're more spot-on than you can imagine by Qbertino · · Score: 1

    Even god almighty couldn't make Italian transit work, Mussolini never stood a chance.

    The italians couldn't even manage to invade greece once the war started. Hitler had to send troops to help out and they ended up doing most of the work (no joke). Anecdotes say he was fuming, that with allies like Italy no one needed enemies. As WW2 goes, The Third Reich would've probably actually errm ... 'done better' (pardon my choice of words) without Italy as an ally.
    If you want a project to fail, give it to italians, I guess. :-)

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
  172. Re:Great. Now the sloth community... by metrix007 · · Score: 1

    Imbecile. Check your arrogance and you will realize this is far from the first time you've been wrong, and that you could have been learning things all the while.

    --
    If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
  173. Re:Surprise, surprise... by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 1

    The end does not justify the means.

    If you were going to go that route, you shouldn't have lead off by arguing from consequences to begin with.

  174. Re:Great. Now the sloth community... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So what about all your abusive posts on slashdot?

    At least Linus is competent and correct. You just spew insults and ignorance.

  175. Re:Great. Now the sloth community... by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

    I'm a laddie and I find your post offensive, you insensitive clod!

    FTFY.

    --
    I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.