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.
It is now official. Netcraft has confirmed: Linux is dying
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered Linux community when IDC confirmed that Linux market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that Linux has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. Linux is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.
You don't need to be the Amazing Kreskin to predict Linux's future. The hand writing is on the wall: Linux faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for Linux because Linux is dying. Things are looking very bad for Linux. As many of us are already aware, Linux continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.
All major surveys show that Linux has steadily declined in market share. Linux is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If Linux is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. Linux continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, LInux is dead.
Good on you for putting wotrk in and not just words in. I'm interested to see how many contributors will support the fork.
Twinstiq, game news
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?
Just for the people who don't know what the fuck securelevel is (NetBSD's flavor in this case)
Not going back to Linux, but this really is a worthwhile addition.
CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
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.
The ideal Linux kernel fork would panic if it detected a systemd infection.
Branching happens all the time, either to develop a feature or because it's doing something that upstream won't accept. One man maintaining his own patches isn't a fork. A fork would imply that that you're planning to diverge from or replace the project you branched from, nothing in his post indicates he wants to compete with Linux or the LKML. He's just saying I'll make my own patches and provide them for those who want them, but I'm not going to bother trying to upstream them. Kinda like Debian and Ubuntu, Canonical made a lot of patches for Debian but they weren't trying to fork it. They just rebased off it every six months, being a downstream variation. He's making a downstream variation with some interface from BSD. Big whoop.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
"Use the fork, Matthew!"
Those attacks were FUD centered SCO's extortion attempts and Microsoft's tactics to stall Linux adoption not based on reality. These are not "attacks" on Linux but disagreements by kernel developers about the future of the kernel. A big difference to me.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Remember that forks sometimes do succeed.
Take Linux. It forked from OpenBSD which itself was forked from QNX with smatterings of FreeBSD code.
QNX programmed itself from vacuum tubes and trace wires left on the ground at Quantum Software in Ottawa one evening. Dan Hildebrand (RIP) apparently had something to do with this metamorphosis.
Meanwhile across the ocean, FreeBSD was forked from Windows 95 which itself came from the unholy union of MS-DOS and the GEM environment. MS-DOS was bought from a company in Washington State and was a fork of CP/M. GEM was a stand alone thing and should never have been born.
Where was I? Oh yeah, CP/M. CP/M was a copy of Apple's SOS used in the Apple
Apple SOS was a mix/fork of Apple ProDOS and TRS-80's OS; I forget the name, not important. Radio Shack forked their TRS-80 OS from some source code they saw in Lions' Commentary on UNIX 6th Edition.
Fact.
Trolling is a art,
Isn't that a strength of Linux?
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Nice to see someone actually following through. It might not go anywhere... but I fucking hate ego-driven development so much that I would back this type of move regardless of the dspecifics. Linus (and the mentality he spreads) can die in a fire for all I care.
Isn't that a strength of Linux?
Mostly, yes... in both directions.
Besides, this is not the first time this has happened, reason notwithstanding (see also Alan Cox.)
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Are you asking about the benefit of securelevel or the benefit of a fork that doesn't have an asshole culture?
Securelevel is of benefit to systems that run for a long time in the same configuration, making them more secure. This applies to many servers. Basically, it separates having the machine RUNNING from the setup process of CONFIGURING the machine. 99% of the time, the machine is in run mode (securelevel > 1) and in this state it's configuration can not be changed. To change the configuration, you boot into configuration mode (securelevel 1). That's a basic summary.
The submission is more about this dev getting tired of the culture, the environment that Linus has created and doing his development outside of that structure. It's not clear if he intends to lead a group of developers who aren't assholes. If so, that could mean more developers would contribute and they might be more productive in a less caustic environment. More developers being more productive would mean end users get more features, done better.
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.
The thing is, anyone can checkout and fork the Linux kernel. This is what Git does best. Developers can fork and remerge to their heart's content.
Most forks in a Git tree maintain some relationship with the parent. My guess is the maintainers of this fork will still merge in updates from Linus's kernel. So what is the big deal? Depending on how the do it, some of their features may eventually get merged into Linus's branch as well.
Forking the kernel and creating are exactly the way Git development is supposed to work. If enough people like it and it proves successful, it can easily be merged back in. This is massively distributed development. It may be a hard concept for some corporate-led programmers to understand, but this is seriously nothing of significant importance. Things are working as expected. There is no central brain in Linux development, only trusted repositories and relationship, and the merges between repositories. As long as the crowd trusts one repo more than another, that will be seen as the main repo. If Linus dies tomorrow, Linux would go on under another trusted repo.
Are you sure he is not currently being paid for his work on the kernel? He used to be when he was at RedHat
When you cant win, ad hominem.
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?
Believe me, I can't stand SJWs, but there comes a point when the whole community just has an asshole elitist behavior, when they aren't elite at anything other than being nominees for biggest douche in the universe award.
I keep seeing people mention SJW reasons for this, but it may go beyond that. Even the systemd people were fed up with the attitude:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...
"i stopped working on the upstream kernel "long ago" for reasons i cannot stand the attitude of these guys, i decided to work with grown up or funny, or grown up and funny people instead and i enjoy it a lot more. not sure what this childish blackmail attempt relates to."
What I find ironic is that Linus hammer banned Kay Sievers for having the same type of attitude that Sarah Sharp and Matthew Garrett are accusing Linus of having.
If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
a) A fork is not the end of the original project. It can be. But usually it's not.
b) "In October 2014, Garrett stated on his blog that he would no longer contribute Linux kernel changes relating to Intel hardware" - That's pettiness, and I'm sure the kernel came to a grinding halt that day too.
c) If you can't get your changes past other people, to the point that you have to fork and maintain an entirely separate branch on your own, that's usually the sign of messy code or absolute loss. It means that you want only YOUR way to be the way. That kind of lack of co-operation isn't the way forward, but you are more than free to pursue that. The number of followers of that fork versus the stock kernel is likely to be tiny, and changes likely to come back in the "accepted" format into the stock kernel before you see any real usage of it outside developers and testers.
d) "He is a recipient of the Free Software Award from the Free Software Foundation for his work on Secure Boot, UEFI, and the Linux kernel". Ah! All the bits that I *don't* want in the kernel. Did he work on systemd too?
Well, we are just hearing his side of this (in this article).
Are there forum / list logs that back him up on this?
It's quite possible that Linus had good and valid reasons for not going Garrett's route, in addition to the "name issue", and that Garrett is only using the name issue to make it look like the reasoning was petty.
I like you, Stuart. You're not like everyone else, here, at Slashdot.
Just another attention-whoring SJW.
Who got their panties in a bunch because WAAAAAHHHH LINUS SAID MEAN THINGS TO ME ON A MAILING LIST
Yes, Linus Torvalds is a gigantic, flaming dickwad. So what.
He's not your employer. You don't depend on him for your paycheck. And he isn't coming into your home or office and berating you in person. If you're that upset about something that someone wrote on a mailing list, and you have a problem with the basic concept that this is the guy who created Linux and this is how he wants things to work, then you need to GTFO.
Especially since most distros look to hypervisors to implement strong security. They leave less attack surface exposed than sandboxing/jailing.
And he isn't coming into your home or office and berating you in person.
And that makes a difference... how, exactly?
It's not about "interminable arguments over the naming", the only one doing that is no else than Matthew, in attempt to pigeonhole his agenda.
This dates way way back to 98. Matthew tried to push gradual openbsd-ish "lock down everything" levels few times, while Linus and his club keeps firm stance "inherited bitmaps or gtfo" every time.
This is ultimately BSD "give user limited but easy to use tool" vs linux "provide powerful [albeit not as intuitive] tools, let user do the job". Think pf vs iptables. I personally stand with linus on this one, as providing flexible tools (instead of easy to use, but limited) is ultimately what made Linux a winner - people can bend the system for more usecases, instead of being restricted by simple and easy to use, but often hopelessly limited tools.
Guys, this is not a dick-sucking contest. If you want to parse PE binaries, go right ahead. If Red Hat wants to deep-throat Microsoft, that's *your* issue. That has nothing what-so-ever to do with the kernel I maintain. It's trivial for you guys to have a signing machine that parses the PE binary, verifies the signatures, and signs the resulting keys with your own key. You already wrote the code, for chissake, it's in that f*cking pull request.
By the time SCALE 11 hit, Matt was no longer working at redhat. people moved on. A Fork was always an option for Matthew...just perplexed as to why he decided to do it 2 years after...
Good people go to bed earlier.
Athiesm Plus
I remember that clusterfuck well...it was a total crapload of pure stupid, with dickheads like PZ Meyers jumping on the bandwagon.
Garrett is the idiot who, while working for Red Hat, screeched that a kernel developer Ted Tso was a 'rape apologist' on a mailing list - completely untrue and a disgusting lie.
Ahh yes, "rape apologist", the specious accusation that keeps on giving. Needs no basis in fact or reality to be used, smears the target nicely, and makes the accuser feel like he/she is "helping the world".
The people that use this term to accuse others of some supposed behavior can't even agree on what it means, and by some definitions if you've ever looked at a woman on the street and thought she was attractive, you're a "rape apologist". If you've ever looked at nude images of women on the internet, you're a "rape apologist". The list goes on and on and most of it is genuinely insane.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
What talent? The SJWs are all pretty talented at being hypocritical and shedding crocodile tears at the UN, but they don't seem to be any good at actually writing code.
If they were then Zoe Quinn's "game" would have been more than reams of self-pitying text and some multiple-choice. A teenage script kiddie could do better.
Sarkeesian would have several AAA titles under her belt instead of just talking about how everyone else should make games to suit her.
That female kernel dev from yesterday would have forked the kernel herself or done something really impressive if she had the chops-- instead she apparently couldn't hang with the real bad asses and tried to make it sound like it was everyone being mean to poor little her. But as far as I can tell she butted into some good-natured ribbing between friends on the mailing list and got all offended at remarks that had absolutely nothing to do with her.
Ellen Pao is precisely the same way: lots of talk and being offended but has never actually accomplished anything aside from ruining Reddit (love it or hate it).
Poetering is the only programmer target of persecution I've ever heard of that actually doesn't deserve the hatred and who has actually accomplished something. But, oh, look: he's not a SJW and he doesn't make a living from being permanently offended; he makes a living writing code and gettin' stuff done (regardless of whether you hate systemd).
The FOSS community will be much better off without the SJW "contributions". Kernel development should be done by programmers not by self-righteous whiners who complain on twitter about how offended they always feel instead of fixing bugs. We'll never hear of this fork of the kernel ever again because the people behind it are not trying to make good software. I'm not saying that Linus' methods are efficient or effective, just that the goals are different.
This is the "deepthroating Microsoft" he's referring to: https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/2/21/228
It was a pretty stupid idea, and it isn't surprising that Linus shot it down.
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.
> 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?
They shouldn't, but you're assuming this is actually the case. Everyone is civil until people start getting arrogant, then the gloves come off. So if you don't want abuse, don't act like a dick and expect others not to say anything.
> 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.
You wouldn't get that kind of review unless you were an asshole to the reviewer first. And this is an open community, nobody is forcing anyone to do anything. You don't have the right to decide that other people should be forced to like you or that they cannot call you out for being a jerk when you act like one. And if you don't like it, you don't ever have to talk to them.
> Garrett found that there was no HR to appeal to, no way to work around Torvalds, and no way to change him.
It's a free country. If there was such an HR, he could be sent there too. But we don't have social police to crack down on anyone who makes you feel bad and that's a good thing. What he does have is the option he used: the option to walk.
And guess what? If he's a dick to contributors, there still won't be any "HR" for anyone to talk to. That's how it works. It's open and free and... apparently some people hate that.
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
i have little coding knowledge and have no idea how kernel coding collaboration works
but i tend to side with linus
if he verbally abused me i'd first make sure i didn't do something so stupid it warrants such a response (in case you want to say 'nothing warrants verbal abuse', we're adults, not children) before deciding to move away.
Here's an example of Linus ranting on someone:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/12/...
Yes, it's pretty harsh. But I can't honestly say that what Linus said was wrong.
> poor culture
First, "poor" is a value judgment and more a matter of opinion than fact.
Second, "culture" is a bit of a stretch. It seems more like a clash of personalities, one of which happens to head the Linux kernel project.
Finally, this smells much more like people thinking "gosh, everyone else on the Internet is pouty and offended, and I've had an unpleasant experience, therefore I too must have something worth bitching about publicly, because why should I be denied some of this sweet, sweet, whiner's attention?" and contributing to the ever-deepening cesspool of useless, pointless drama on the Internet.
Sarah had already moved on in her interests, and Matthew wanted to do something different, and so he went and did that. Honestly, I don't think they were "driven away".
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
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
Nope. No talent is valuable to a group effort if it comes with emotional baggage that cannot tolerate direct, blunt communication when needed. This mathew garrett guy is a prime example of a prima donna that projects could do without.
http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/35...
http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/36...
http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/33...
Bitching about 'cis' white men *check*
Bitching about 'privilege' *check*
deprecating towards women like he's some kind of hero *check*
'reverse discrimination' isn't a valid criticism of my brand of discrimination *check*
comments disabled "because I don't trust you guys" *check*
These and other posts by him read like first year student polysci essays. It makes perfect sense that linus and co want to keep diseased politics like this out of their community. I'm sure they wouldn't want bible thumper 'developers' telling them they're shits for not integrating jesus into their group culture either.
Only in theory. In practice, hypervisors have had more security issues, not to mention performance issues. Jails are faster and more secure if you look at their track record. Some of the most reknown kernel programmers who have been working on kernels before Unix had a name, and have worked in both hypervisors and jails, have said that hypervisors are a complicated mess for both software and hardware and securing them is a huge issue. Jails are much simpler and with anything security, simpler is better.
A guy complaining about unprofessionalism uses the term "deep throating". Ok then.
That's the beauty of FOSS. If you're in a pissy, childish mood, you can take a copy of someone else's ball and go home to pout. :P
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
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 almost can't wait for 5-10 years down the road when she's completely irrelevant and everyone's making fun of her like they do to Jack Thompson now for having the exact same argument he had.
I'm hoping that it won't take nearly that long...but it probably will.
It'll be interesting to see just how long she can make a living at playing the victim card. To see her at the UN underscores just how ridiculous and irrelevant the UN has become. She and Zoe Quinn should never have been given an audience there. It's shameful and embarrassing.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
1. There is no gauntlet of vitriol, only for quality code and design. Linus only whips out the big guns for deserved behavior/code. It's very rare, but, historically, when it happens, it saves a ton of time and stress for everyone else. Honesty is more important than shielding sensitive people from bad feelings.
2. garrett wasnt' seared 'whenever he got anything done.' That bit about the PE binaries was pretty stupid on his part.
3. appeals to what 'normal people' are, implying that kernel devs are not, is just ad hominem.
https://www.google.com/search?...
Look at the last entry on the first page (might change, so recorded for posterity)
Matthew Garrett - Geek Feminism Wiki
geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Matthew_Garrett
Matthew Garrett (also known as mjg59) is a Linux kernel developer and is well-known in the Linux...
It is very likely that he actually did this because of Sarah quitting yesterday.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
I forked the linux kernel in 1998, porting it to a new processor that the company I was working for was developing. Seventeen year later, linux appears to be fine in much the same way my old company isn't.
GP isn't forking the Linux kernel out of a ridiculous sense of entitlement, so it's irrelevant.
(GP, you aren't, right?)
You are incorrect.
Did Linus say, "I hope you eat dicks and die you fag?"
Did Linus say, "You're a shit programmer for thinking up something like this?"
Did Linus say, "Go to hell you moron?"
No. He did not personally insult the developer in any way. He made a rude comment about a company -- which doesn't have feelings -- to get his point across. The poster of that patch has no reason to be personally offended. The comment was about his work, not him as a human being.
vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
This is why Linux will NEVER WIN
Hmmm...I think the world begs to differ since Linux is on the vast majority of hardware out there - everything from watches to super computers (far more breadth than *any* other operating system or operating system kernel out there). And then there's also:
"If Microsoft ever does applications for Linux it means I've won." - Linus Torvalds
Which since Microsoft is now making a version fo Visual Studios for Linux, is using its own custom Linux Distro in its data center....
well, I'll just leave it to you, but it seems that Linux has indeed won.
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
Linus has been acting that way since the beginning, in fact since Matthew Garrett is 22 Linus has been acting that way since before he was born. Linus's behavior is not an existential threat to the project since it's one of the most successful projects in human history despite the fact that he has always acted like that.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
It's an european vs american problem. Americans think: "Why can't he make his point without being vulgar." Europeans (minus the English, probably) think: "He's a a bit childish, sure, but why do these american prudes make such a fuss about it, it's not that important." (And they're mostly not offended at all.)
Actually, it's probably more correct to say north-european. I'm certain nobody in the netherlands or scandinavia whould give a damn about it. I'm a bit less sure about france/spain/italy but I wouldn't really think it would be a real problem there either.
Furthermore, the term 'deep-throating microsoft' *was* very to the point. I challenge you to express the same disgust of the proposed patch in a more civilized manner which would also make it immediately clear how disgusted you are.
Hypervisors are a really bad idea when you have high security requirements. They increase complexity and hence, attack surface. (And they have bugs.) In addition, you still have a distro in there, so in order to be somewhat secure, you still need the jails/sandboxing/chroot.
The increased complexity also makes attacks more complex, so for lower security needs, this can work.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Given the downmods each of us got in the pile, it seems this is a contentious issue.
Personally, I disagree with your assessment, but that said, I am aware that one person's fair assessment followed by a harsher and unequivocal reply if the assessment is rejected, may easily be seen by another as undue abuse.
I make no apologies for the list, because it reminds me exactly of a typical USAF flightline. Doing something dumb or misguided will get you a direct and to-the-point talking-to; first logical and fair, but increasingly harsher if you continue to resist even listening.
The reasons why are different but just as serious: in the kernel, screw-ups in design and/or direction can eventually destroy the kernel's usefulness and flexibility. On the flightline, screwups in procedure or behavior will eventually get you killed.
The harshness against any whining and/or backtalk in either case is not just someone being a turd - it's a reminder that there are reasons for things being as they are, and any proposed changes had better have a damned good reason up-front.
HTH a little.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
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...)
While I think Poettering has no clue about UNIX Architecture and philosophy and is doing work of negative impact, he is doing work and trying things. He is likely a pretty good coder, he is just no architect, and no UNIX person. And while I do not "hate" him, nothing of his stuff will ever make it onto my machines, unless he starts to get a clue.
Other than that, I fully agree.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Furthermore, the term 'deep-throating microsoft' *was* very to the point. I challenge you to express the same disgust of the proposed patch in a more civilized manner which would also make it immediately clear how disgusted you are.
"I am thoroughly disgusted by even considering this change and will never allow it into the kernel." After all, he has absolute say over what goes in. It's pretty easy to lay down the law without talking about erect penises inside throats, but it does require a certain level of emotional maturity I suppose.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Considering Garrett's SJW credentials, it's more likely about working on his own, with his own mailing list where he can block anyone not adhering to his particular set of prejudices. I doubt it will be particularly productive. Or inclusive.
Jails are much simpler and with anything security, simpler is better.
It's not substitute for actual nested VMs, though. One of these days, someone will resurrect the Fluke model.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Are you homophobic?
Why, because only homosexual people suck dicks? Believe it or not, but I actually know several heterosexual people who do in fact enjoy sucking dicks, and I think they're great people. No, I'm not homophobic, and this has nothing to do with sexuality. See what happens? The topic was parsing PE binaries, and now you're asking me if I'm homophobic. That kind of highlights the exact problem that we're talking about. Sexuality and sexual acts do not belong in a professional discussion about technical issues that have zero to do with sexuality.
There is nothing wrong with suck*ng d!cks or any other d!ck metaphor.
If there's nothing wrong with it then why are you self-censoring the phrase "sucking dicks"?
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Indeed!
Not literally of course, but still. Linus has been and still is in charge, and has managed OK.
But has also kicked out quite a number of good professionals, for no other reason than his narcissism, ego and at times completely dysfunctional communication.
"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."
Precisely the problem. And their presence, the culture, has been initiated and is being maintained by Linus.
It is classical narcissistic behaviour; surround yourself with people whom you feel pose no danger to your world view in which you are a god. It results in a mob of people stupider than the narcissist, willing to follow and OK him on anything, and who display much the same (narcissistic) traits.
Reference: https://www.google.com/search?...
Beware of the Leopard.
You are probably thinking of the convenient type 2 hypervisors like virtualbox (or just kvm) that need a whole host OS to operate.
A type 1 hypervisor like Xen decreases critical attack surface drastically, especially if services like graphics are not present or are properly virtualized as in Qubes OS. Amazon AWS and EC2 also rely on Xen for security.
As for guest complexity, a certain amount of that is a given and will create opportunities for attack. The question is whether VM breakout is possible -- can all the other domains be kept safe from an attack on domain X?
Kernel-based permission systems are complex and practically guaranteed to fail. That is, unless, your user base is rather small.
As I strongly implied, type 1 hypervisors are more secure, not less, than type 2. Try at least reading the parent post before lapsing into your "no, no, no..." mantra. Implying that type 2 is more secure is absurd.
If you haven't already stopped reading (again), you might want to read this: http://blog.invisiblethings.or...
In short, a jailed process on a host system still has a very complex, privileged kernel to try and exploit. But in a Xen guest VM, its only the complexity of the hypervisor interfaces that matter since the kernel is unprivileged and must go through the same interfaces to attempt an attack on anything else in the system.
Here's another way to think about it: BSD security literature relies heavily on jails. But what proportion of BSD-based applications are running in BSDs that are merely virtualized guests?
Finally, how do jails deal with attacks on firmware or misbehaving hardware? That I'm aware of, using an IOMMU to assign a (real) NIC on a PCI bus to a jail is not possible, and would be pointless if it were. But with hypervisors like Xen on hardware that supports IOMMU, assigning hardware devices to guest VMs is a feasible way to increase security that is growing in popularity.