Slashdot Mirror
Matthew Garrett Forks the Linux Kernel
jones_supa writes: Just like Sarah Sharp, Linux developer Matthew Garrett has gotten fed up with the unprofessional development culture surrounding the kernel. "I remember having to deal with interminable arguments over the naming of an interface because Linus has an undying hatred of BSD securelevel, or having my name forever associated with the deepthroating of Microsoft because Linus couldn't be bothered asking questions about the reasoning behind a design before trashing it," Garrett writes. He has chosen to go his own way, and has forked the Linux kernel and added patches that implement a BSD-style securelevel interface. Over time it is expected to pick up some of the power management code that Garrett is working on, and we shall see where it goes from there.
Another guy whose wasting his efforts on a project that will never be picked up by a mainstream distro and thus will die a slow, quiet death.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I don't actually mean to sound snide but can someone explain to me why I should care about this as an end user? TFS reads like someone got their panties in a bunch over some arcane detail and couldn't bear to not get his way. Is there some amazing benefit to users in this or is this just some developer having a snit because Linus disagreed with his preferences?
Hopefully he will keep his branch in sync and offer back his contributions like other developers who have done the same thing.
Many developers felt that working on the main Linux kernel tree involved too much politics and in-fighting and chose to maintain their own dev branches for their patches. Any that keep their trees in sync have successfully continued to contribute, and left the politics for when their projects were ready for merging. Any that didn't keep in sync, well . . . at least we don't worry about those projects anymore.
This is how it's supposed to work. Whether he can make a functioning team or not is an open question, but at least he can see if a more polite environment gets better results.
Furthermore, should something like this be omitted simply because Linus doesn't like it? Is his opinion the only one that counts?
Since he is the repo owner, yes, his opinion is the only one that counts in the end.
Although this project will probably never end up being used in any wide way, shouldn't the Linux community be concerned that it's running talent away with a poor culture?
If this were happening at our office, we'd all be concerned about brain drain.
Why should a person face a gauntlet of incivility and vitriol, one that you liken to a frying pan, to contribute to an open source project?
Code reviews, design reviews, that makes sense. Being referred to someone at a lower paygrade rather than the top tier of kernel devs, sure. These things are stressful but essential. I'd stand to lose considerable self-esteem from them, but there's nothing I can do about that but get better.
But if I went into a code or design review at work and got a Torvalds-style response, I'd be reporting the person to HR and finding a more civil person to work with. If I couldn't work around them and nobody was making them change, I'd find another job. I could try to modify the problematic person's behavior, but that would be stressful and unlikely to work, and I shouldn't have to act as my coworkers' parent.
Garrett found that there was no HR to appeal to, no way to work around Torvalds, and no way to change him. So he did in fact get out of the frying pan. He doesn't deserve to be seared whenever he gets anything done, so he's not tolerating it. Now he's getting the same things done in a way that normal people will be happier with.
This isn't a deficiency on his part. He merely doesn't want to deal with something that normal people shouldn't have to deal with.
The project leader insults people a lot and is too distracted by a name to give my code a fair evaluation, so I'm going to stop trying to work with him in my free time and instead work on my own, where I can get things done without a ton of useless fighting.
There's plenty of puerileness here, but not from Garrett.
I didn't agree with the views he had, but he never attacked any of the people that worked for him over their sexual preference. He made a contribution to something he PERSONALLY felt was correct and was demonized for it years later by people too quick to pick up the pitch forks. Just like Tim Hunt, Matt Taylor and Brad Wardell.
I want you to seriously think about how easy it's going to be to remove someone from any community that's preventing the shit that ended up on firefox.
Corporation and/or Government: "We want mandatory tracking in XXX"
XXX project lead: "No way, not going to happen"
Rando on Twitter: "XXX project lead is a bigot"
< Ensuing twitter storm and articles about XXX project lead >
XXX project lead: "People are sending me things in the mail and threatening my family, I have to step down"
Corporation and/or Government: "We want mandatory tracking in XXX"
New XXX project lead: "Sure thing boss."
I see a lot of parallels with other things I've seen going on over the last year. Like this for example
https://www.reddit.com/r/progr...
Labeling someone as a "bigot" is just a convenient way to get people to attack them or feel better about attacking them, allegations true or not.
Although this project will probably never end up being used in any wide way, shouldn't the Linux community be concerned that it's running talent away with a poor culture?
No.
Anyone with any real experience in hacking the Linux kernel already knows what they're getting into. It is also very widely known that Linus is incredibly fair in his assessments. If you provide useful contributions, no worries. If your commit is a total brainfart, you'll get a rejection, but the abuse won't come unless you decide to be a dumbass or get all arrogant about it.
It's about as fair as it gets.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
And he isn't coming into your home or office and berating you in person.
And that makes a difference... how, exactly?
Indeed, people should just take vicious verbal abuse.
Which is nonsense, and completely non-arrogant, technical arguments have been met with vicious personal attacks and verbal abuse. There's a shockingly large number of emotionally immature and insecure people in the Kernel community, and a great many people meet the wrath of those people for no good reason.
And they abuse because they know they can get away with it and others like you will apologize and defend it.
Because you can always press delete, close the window, and walk away. Preferrably without posting a big rant complaining about why you’re ragequitting first, but whatev’s
You're not wrong Walter. You're just an asshole.
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
You don't blame Linus? When people are talking about signing and parsing PE binaries, and whether that belongs in the kernel or in userland, you think that it's perfectly acceptable to talk about sucking dicks? That's effective management to you?
I mean, why can't Linus just make his point without multiple references to sucking dicks? Why is that not an option?
That's the point he's making. He's not talking about whether or not Linus is correct, he's talking about the way in which Linus chooses to communicate.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
I've seen references to "don't get your panties in a bunch", Mr Garrett called "girly" in a negative tone, and a "pussy", in a negative tone. And people wonder why some form the opinion of developers as sexist?
And we all talk about OpenSource as choice, yet when someone chooses to leave a project because of non-technical issues such as language choice from managers, we deride them. So, choice is good, as long as you choose to follow what I tell you...
anyways, carry on.
While I think it's unfortunate that some innocents get caught in the crossfire, the toxicity of SJW culture is simply so damaging that I think the approach of not giving an inch is the only tenable one. Once you start coddling specific individuals by sanctions against other individuals you immediately start up the competition of the most offended, the community fractures into group politics and productivity rapidly dissipates.
There's no utility in being deliberatly uncivil unless it's necessary to get a point across, but as soon as someone starts requiring special snowflake status and demonstrates a sense of entitlement to special care for theirs or others feelings then they should get that discussion shut down asap. Allowing the SJW mindset to start festering will do much more damage than the cost of losing a few good developers.
(And it's hardly the first time Matthew Garrett has figured in an SJW context...)