3 ms·

Since you appear to me to be referring to my comment (as I'm the only top-level comment to mention Rust) let me quote some of my comment, with emphasis added to

Since you appear to me to be referring to my comment (as I'm the only top-level comment to mention Rust) let me quote some of my comment, with emphasis added to phrases I used to indicate that I was presenting was my opinion, not presenting my opinion as fact, and indeed not suggesting a rewrite in Rust (which you appear to have incorrectly inferred.) This is, in my opinion, a rather generous interpretation of events ... What I see when reading this is a system (the Linux kernel and surrounding infrastructure like the C language) that is very poorly designed. ... I'm not trying to suggest the kernel should be rewritten in Rust. If one cannot mention their opinion on this site what indeed is the point of the site? Furthermore, your response is typical of what I've seen to shutdown discussion of kernel development: to suggest the author is an idiot and cannot possibly understand the complexities involved, and if they did they would follow the established development procedures. Do you believe the current state of kernel development is perfect? If not, if one cannot discuss problems how will one ever improve? In this particular case it seems to be a well studied class of bug (use-after-free). Why do you suggest that the many years of work on tools and other methods to address this problem should be ignored?

metaphorm 10y ago
or, you could just shrug and laugh. those who have an interest in kernel development might get something of technical interest out of your comment. those who don't have an interest in kernel development find a lot of the internal debates in that field to be funny, particularly when they seem to show up in all kinds of tangentially-related threads. it's a quirk. kernel developers have this quirk and it's funny. just laugh. it's ok.
joosters 10y ago
It wasn't specifically you, but IMO your comment is guilty of the charge I was making: What I see when reading this is a system (...) that is very poorly designed. I know it's just your opinion, so what? Everything that people write on here is their opinion. But in true Hacker News style, you're straight out declaring that the low level internals of Linux memory management are rubbish. Not just poorly designed, but very poorly designed. As you say yourself, 'to suggest the author is an idiot' Before this declaration, did you pause and think that maybe, just maybe, the kernel code authors might not be idiots? Or perhaps, you might have reflected, the kernel developers may have considered various different memory management schemes, maybe they weighed up the pros and cons of different approaches and found the current system to be good? Did you entertain the possibility that there might well be other non-obvious considerations that influence the choice of data structure? Apparently not, because you're happy to quickly declare that it's terrible code. I'm not declaring you to be an idiot. It's the fact that you and others on here launch straight into the full-on 'this is/they are stupid, they should obviously do this' kind of statements, showing a dearth of empathy and a complete failure to look at the other side's view. I'm not trying to shut down discussion. I'm not saying the kernel is perfect, or that the developers are beyond reproach. I'm not saying ignore years of work. It's the way in which some HN users, like you, jump into extremes of viewpoints (even your response is full of it too, with the questioning about perfect, cannot discuss problems, etc) And the rust comment was a throwaway joke, HN commentators cannot seem to resist putting a 'do it in rust' comment somewhere in all code discussion...
- noelwelsh 10y ago
  Thanks for the response. I appreciate you taking time to clarify your position. I don't think my position is as clearly articulated in my first comment as it might be, but I doubt you or others have much interest in it so I'll drop the conversation here.
  - joosters 10y ago
    No worries, re-reading it I think I came across too harsh... no offence meant. I'm guilty at posting the same kind of things that I'm complaining about too :)

metaphorm 10y ago

or, you could just shrug and laugh. those who have an interest in kernel development might get something of technical interest out of your comment. those who don't have an interest in kernel development find a lot of the internal debates in that field to be funny, particularly when they seem to show up in all kinds of tangentially-related threads. it's a quirk. kernel developers have this quirk and it's funny. just laugh. it's ok.

joosters 10y ago

It wasn't specifically you, but IMO your comment is guilty of the charge I was making: What I see when reading this is a system (...) that is very poorly designed. I know it's just your opinion, so what? Everything that people write on here is their opinion. But in true Hacker News style, you're straight out declaring that the low level internals of Linux memory management are rubbish. Not just poorly designed, but very poorly designed. As you say yourself, 'to suggest the author is an idiot' Before this declaration, did you pause and think that maybe, just maybe, the kernel code authors might not be idiots? Or perhaps, you might have reflected, the kernel developers may have considered various different memory management schemes, maybe they weighed up the pros and cons of different approaches and found the current system to be good? Did you entertain the possibility that there might well be other non-obvious considerations that influence the choice of data structure? Apparently not, because you're happy to quickly declare that it's terrible code. I'm not declaring you to be an idiot. It's the fact that you and others on here launch straight into the full-on 'this is/they are stupid, they should obviously do this' kind of statements, showing a dearth of empathy and a complete failure to look at the other side's view. I'm not trying to shut down discussion. I'm not saying the kernel is perfect, or that the developers are beyond reproach. I'm not saying ignore years of work. It's the way in which some HN users, like you, jump into extremes of viewpoints (even your response is full of it too, with the questioning about perfect, cannot discuss problems, etc) And the rust comment was a throwaway joke, HN commentators cannot seem to resist putting a 'do it in rust' comment somewhere in all code discussion...

noelwelsh 10y ago
Thanks for the response. I appreciate you taking time to clarify your position. I don't think my position is as clearly articulated in my first comment as it might be, but I doubt you or others have much interest in it so I'll drop the conversation here.
- joosters 10y ago
  No worries, re-reading it I think I came across too harsh... no offence meant. I'm guilty at posting the same kind of things that I'm complaining about too :)