4 ms·

Linus’s Rant Rewritten http://catcode.com/comments/2015/cf20151101.html http://catcode.com/comments/2015/cf20151101.html

by Maxious 11y ago

fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
Too weak. Uses weasel words. ie: "Consider this replacement:" Linus' version is obviously too strong for some peoples' tastes, but the rewritten version doesn't send a clear message. A lot of things can be said about Linus' typical comments, but the messaging being ambiguous is not one of them.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
  - TallGuyShort 11y ago
    That's like saying charities don't do anything because there are still homeless people. You can improve a problem without eliminating it.
  - mark-r 11y ago
    At his scale, any little bit helps, and crap is guaranteed to get through regardless. Can you imagine how worse it would be if he didn't lay down the law?
- santaclaus 11y ago
  I've seen this sort of language creeping into discussions over the past year or two, and it feels quite strange. Lots of phrasing statements of fact as questions, etc. I'm not sure what this accomplishes -- it certainly makes the heart of many technical discussions harder to get to.
- oxryly1 11y ago
  > "Consider this replacement:" Those aren't weasel words, that's direct feedback. The rewritten message clearly indicates a rejection of the submitted code, so directing the submitter to consider the example replacement seems a constructive and appropriate response. The rewritten version neglects the criticism that the submitted code is too fiddly relying on the short-circuit of the || operator, but Linus failed to mention that as well :p
  - fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
    I disagree. "Consider this replacement" is practically an invitation to debate; or worse, possibly misunderstood as "I agree your way works, but I like my way better, so let me be capricious about it and reject your PR because I can." Another poster re-rewrote it in a way that I feel is at least unambiguous.
    - chris_wot 11y ago
      There has already been some comments on that message. Unless you are saying Linus is always correct? Or should people be fearful and not want to say anything at all to him? Looks a bit that way.
    - oxryly1 11y ago
      Maybe. But imagine if Captain Jean-Luc Picard said it to you as a direct order. You'd probably get busy considering.
      - chris_wot 11y ago
        I'm a nerd, so sue me. I'd rather have the order from Captain Janeway.
  - klagermkii 11y ago
    Even if you don't consider them to be weasel words, it loses all emotional dynamic range that conveys the relative seriousness of the issue. When Linus is already limited in his communication with contributers by the nature of email, how does he separate minor problems from major ones? That rewritten post reads like it could be for a small stylistic mistake of relative unimportance. These "Linus rants" come up rarely enough that we're able to flag what is important to him (such as don't break user-space) from the thousands of other disagreements he has with contributers.
- ta0o0o0 11y ago
  Took out the hedging words. It could probably still be made more firm and remain civil. ------------- Linus’s Rant RE-Rewritten This is the old code in net/ipv6/ip6_output.c: mtu -= hlen + sizeof(struct frag_hdr); and this your replacement: if (overflow_usub(mtu, hlen + sizeof(struct frag_hdr), &mtu) || mtu <= 7) goto fail_toobig; The problem is that the overflow_usub() function is non-standard and requires special compiler support to generate reasonably efficient code. That function hasn't been used anywhere else in the code base before. Also, the code uses two conditionals. Here is how it should have been written: if (mtu < hlen + sizeof(struct frag_hdr) + 8) goto fail_toobig; mtu -= hlen + sizeof(struct frag_hdr); It takes the same number of lines, doesn't need a little-known helper function, is clearer in its intent and is easier to read. There could still be overflow issues if the "hlen + xyz" expression overflows, but the "overflow_usub()" code has that same problem. Also, we are near to rc7 time, and we don't want conflicts at this point. Thank you for submitting the code, but, for all the aforementioned reasons, I have to reject it and will do so for similar code in the future.
nemothekid 11y ago
I feel like the rewrite, in an attempt to succinct, completely misses the point of Linus' rant. I might be reading too much into it, but its less about "using nonstandard functions" and more about "people thinking they're smarter than everyone else and submitting esoteric and/or obscure code." The rewrite should make better effort to translate >and a shiny new nonstandard function that wants particular compiler support to generate even half-way sane code, and even then generates worse code? A shiny function that we have never ever needed anywhere else, and that is just compiler-masturbation. I'm not a kernel developer, but I'm sure others can sympathize with seeing code that was submitted that performs worse, but was only added because it uses some shiny new framework/tool/library/technique they read on a blog.
wisty 11y ago
Here's the problem - NO-ONE WILL FUCKING READ THAT. (Sorry, just swearing to grab attention). Linus isn't just talking to the submitter. He knows perfectly well that his rants will be read by everyone in the community. A polite "plz fix it" will go unnoticed. I'm not sure whether there's some common understanding that his rants are just an act, to get everyone to read them. Or if Linus thinks that it's actually justified to be a dick when people fuck up. But I think it's a factor - when Linus rants, everyone pays attention, and Linus will certainly be aware of that. Yes, it would be nice if people paid attention to him being polite. But if he wrote it like the rewritten suggestion, only a handful of people would read it, and they're probably not the the type of people who are making the mistakes to begin with. If people ask Linus to do anything, ask him to politely reach out to the people he flames, and let them know that the reason for his grandstanding is mostly just to grab eyeballs. It raises an important issue, and while he may be annoyed at the bad submit the level of vitriol is only really there to grab attention.
- chris_wot 11y ago
  Seriously? I can understand if people do it a few times and ignore him, but on the first occasion someone makes an attempt at submitting some code they honestly believed would be helpful and he craps on them from a great height? Charming.
- yitchelle 11y ago
  It appears that his rant/abuse is his MO when he has seen something he disagrees. Being polite is not in his DNA. Imagine if all tech managers in behaves like him, I think most of us would be in other industries.
Crito 11y ago
That's shit.

Linus’s Rant Rewritten http://catcode.com/comments/2015/cf20151101.html http://catcode.com/comments/2015/cf20151101.html

by Maxious 11y ago

Linus’s Rant Rewritten http://catcode.com/comments/2015/cf20151101.html http://catcode.com/comments/2015/cf20151101.html

fnordfnordfnord 11y ago

Too weak. Uses weasel words. ie: "Consider this replacement:" Linus' version is obviously too strong for some peoples' tastes, but the rewritten version doesn't send a clear message. A lot of things can be said about Linus' typical comments, but the messaging being ambiguous is not one of them.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- TallGuyShort 11y ago
  That's like saying charities don't do anything because there are still homeless people. You can improve a problem without eliminating it.
- mark-r 11y ago
  At his scale, any little bit helps, and crap is guaranteed to get through regardless. Can you imagine how worse it would be if he didn't lay down the law?
santaclaus 11y ago
I've seen this sort of language creeping into discussions over the past year or two, and it feels quite strange. Lots of phrasing statements of fact as questions, etc. I'm not sure what this accomplishes -- it certainly makes the heart of many technical discussions harder to get to.
oxryly1 11y ago
> "Consider this replacement:" Those aren't weasel words, that's direct feedback. The rewritten message clearly indicates a rejection of the submitted code, so directing the submitter to consider the example replacement seems a constructive and appropriate response. The rewritten version neglects the criticism that the submitted code is too fiddly relying on the short-circuit of the || operator, but Linus failed to mention that as well :p
- fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
  I disagree. "Consider this replacement" is practically an invitation to debate; or worse, possibly misunderstood as "I agree your way works, but I like my way better, so let me be capricious about it and reject your PR because I can." Another poster re-rewrote it in a way that I feel is at least unambiguous.
  - chris_wot 11y ago
    There has already been some comments on that message. Unless you are saying Linus is always correct? Or should people be fearful and not want to say anything at all to him? Looks a bit that way.
  - oxryly1 11y ago
    Maybe. But imagine if Captain Jean-Luc Picard said it to you as a direct order. You'd probably get busy considering.
    - chris_wot 11y ago
      I'm a nerd, so sue me. I'd rather have the order from Captain Janeway.
- klagermkii 11y ago
  Even if you don't consider them to be weasel words, it loses all emotional dynamic range that conveys the relative seriousness of the issue. When Linus is already limited in his communication with contributers by the nature of email, how does he separate minor problems from major ones? That rewritten post reads like it could be for a small stylistic mistake of relative unimportance. These "Linus rants" come up rarely enough that we're able to flag what is important to him (such as don't break user-space) from the thousands of other disagreements he has with contributers.
ta0o0o0 11y ago
Took out the hedging words. It could probably still be made more firm and remain civil. ------------- Linus’s Rant RE-Rewritten This is the old code in net/ipv6/ip6_output.c: mtu -= hlen + sizeof(struct frag_hdr); and this your replacement: if (overflow_usub(mtu, hlen + sizeof(struct frag_hdr), &mtu) || mtu <= 7) goto fail_toobig; The problem is that the overflow_usub() function is non-standard and requires special compiler support to generate reasonably efficient code. That function hasn't been used anywhere else in the code base before. Also, the code uses two conditionals. Here is how it should have been written: if (mtu < hlen + sizeof(struct frag_hdr) + 8) goto fail_toobig; mtu -= hlen + sizeof(struct frag_hdr); It takes the same number of lines, doesn't need a little-known helper function, is clearer in its intent and is easier to read. There could still be overflow issues if the "hlen + xyz" expression overflows, but the "overflow_usub()" code has that same problem. Also, we are near to rc7 time, and we don't want conflicts at this point. Thank you for submitting the code, but, for all the aforementioned reasons, I have to reject it and will do so for similar code in the future.

nemothekid 11y ago

I feel like the rewrite, in an attempt to succinct, completely misses the point of Linus' rant. I might be reading too much into it, but its less about "using nonstandard functions" and more about "people thinking they're smarter than everyone else and submitting esoteric and/or obscure code." The rewrite should make better effort to translate >and a shiny new nonstandard function that wants particular compiler support to generate even half-way sane code, and even then generates worse code? A shiny function that we have never ever needed anywhere else, and that is just compiler-masturbation. I'm not a kernel developer, but I'm sure others can sympathize with seeing code that was submitted that performs worse, but was only added because it uses some shiny new framework/tool/library/technique they read on a blog.

wisty 11y ago

Here's the problem - NO-ONE WILL FUCKING READ THAT. (Sorry, just swearing to grab attention). Linus isn't just talking to the submitter. He knows perfectly well that his rants will be read by everyone in the community. A polite "plz fix it" will go unnoticed. I'm not sure whether there's some common understanding that his rants are just an act, to get everyone to read them. Or if Linus thinks that it's actually justified to be a dick when people fuck up. But I think it's a factor - when Linus rants, everyone pays attention, and Linus will certainly be aware of that. Yes, it would be nice if people paid attention to him being polite. But if he wrote it like the rewritten suggestion, only a handful of people would read it, and they're probably not the the type of people who are making the mistakes to begin with. If people ask Linus to do anything, ask him to politely reach out to the people he flames, and let them know that the reason for his grandstanding is mostly just to grab eyeballs. It raises an important issue, and while he may be annoyed at the bad submit the level of vitriol is only really there to grab attention.

chris_wot 11y ago
Seriously? I can understand if people do it a few times and ignore him, but on the first occasion someone makes an attempt at submitting some code they honestly believed would be helpful and he craps on them from a great height? Charming.
yitchelle 11y ago
It appears that his rant/abuse is his MO when he has seen something he disagrees. Being polite is not in his DNA. Imagine if all tech managers in behaves like him, I think most of us would be in other industries.

Crito 11y ago

That's shit.