6 ms·

It's a testament to how damaging Greg's comments are that this factual account of the situation is not what people are talking about. Greg's comments were outri

It's a testament to how damaging Greg's comments are that this factual account of the situation is not what people are talking about. Greg's comments were outright slanderous and incorect - he wrongfully alleged that Aditya was knowingly contributing bugs to the kernel, when he was only reporting results from a static analysis research tool. And then Linux mob mentality took over, and Aditya has been dragged through the mud over it. Again, based on false accusations. Aditya did NOTHING that Greg alleged. Again, NOTHING. But facts will be downvoted because the Linux mob loves grandstanding on mailing lists.

xh-dude 5y ago
Aditya should’ve talked to his advisor before suggesting the gatekeepers were, gasp, gatekeeping
- staticassertion 5y ago
  The hell are you talking about? Aditya submitted patches, and Greg alleged that they were malicious and insulted him repeatedly, completely crossing the line from any reasonable technical review over to a direct attack. Aditya's reputation has suffered massively as a result of doing research to try to help the Linux kernel. These are the facts of the situation.
  - HarryHirsch 5y ago
    No, Aditya's reputation has suffered because he is associated with the University of Minnesota. This is what happens when someone screws up, then all their associates get tarred with the same broad brush, no matter how much they were involved. I'm familiar with a case where a faculty member engaged in a case of autoplagiarism and submitted the same paper to two high-profile journals. His graduate students had trouble publishing in reputable journals for years after, and he also earned himself a ban from the national funding agency. For that kind of breach of trust retribution is savage, and that's why you don't engage in it to begin with.
    - staticassertion 5y ago
      I don't want to write out a thought out response to such a joke of a post, so I'll just jot down some notes: 1. Aditya being affiliated with UMN should not damn him to being falsely accused of malice. Greg and others have repeatedly falsely accused Aditya of making malicious contributions, and your answer is "well he goes to UMN"? 2. Plagiarism is irrelevant, as is your entire reference to some unrelated event. 3. Aditya didn't engage in it, though 'savage' is a fine word for how Greg behaved.
      - HarryHirsch 5y ago
        "Joke of a post" is inappropiate. You are saying what perhaps ought to happen (and that's a matter of debate), and I am saying what has happened, I was talking of a past event that happened as described. A professor committed an act of misconduct, and his students suffered for it. Well, it's happening again. That's what happens in a reputation-based environment and it's happening again here. We hope the University of Minnesota offers support to the affected students.
        staticassertion 5y ago
        Yeah it's utter nonsense. This isn't comparable to plagiarism, and even if it were your story is about a stupid situation just like this one, where innocent, unrelated parties were associated with something they had nothing to do with. That you're somehow saying that this is justified or normal is absurd - we should accuse all students of the university of malice? Everyone tangentially related is guilty? Ridiculous, not even worth arguing against. The university already apologized. Where is Greg's apology? Where is Greg's retraction for falsely accusing Adity?
  - xh-dude 5y ago
    Dr. Lu’s research is asking dangerous, thoughtful questions. The answers are sort of unsurprising. It’s not ethical. As I read the discussion archive carefully: 1) A submits patch 2) G suggests a particular patch was “wasting his time”, and that he’s suspicious of this kind of submission from Dr. Lu and UofM. 3) Nearly a day later, A accuses G of ‘wild accusations, bordering on slander’. In fact, no one denies that what G claimed is in fact true - that Dr. Lu and his students had a history of submitting “hypocrite” patches. They published about it! But according to A, it’s G that is being ‘unwelcoming’ and ‘intimidating’, due to ‘preconceived biases’. To me, this is where it starts feeling dramatically personal in nature. 4) I don’t see the language in G’s response to (3) as nearly so personal as (3) itself. It does question A’s professionalism. I’m sympathetic. What was A thinking?
    - nuclearnice1 5y ago
      > In fact, no one denies that what G claimed is in fact true What Greg claims w.r.t. Aditya seems to be false and highly damaging. Greg wrote: “You, and your group, have publicly admitted to sending known-buggy patches to see how the kernel community would react to them” It now appears that Aditya’s patch was submitted in good faith. Greg accused him of intentionally submitting bad patches. That accusation was false. Aditya’s is upset because a powerful figure in the Linux community had made false and damaging accusations against him. Aditya’s reputation has been damaged by Greg’s false accusations. Greg should apologize.
      - xh-dude 5y ago
        Fair enough that Greg can’t know whether Aditya is playing a game. But when Greg says “You, and your group” - it’s surely not Greg’s responsibility to untangle the knot at this point. This comes after Aditya had the opportunity to recognize that Dr. Lu and UofM were on Greg’s radar. There was a window of opportunity for working out the details, having some situational awareness, detangling things. Instead, Aditya just hit back, in a personal and to my mind fairly repugnant way. I maintain he should have talked to Dr. Lu at this point because Dr. Lu could have sought a better resolution at this point. Everyone would be better off. Yeah, Greg seemed angry in response - I think that’s understandable. Should Greg apologize? Sure, why not. But from the skid marks on the road, I’m pretty convinced about who was driving unsafely here.
pritambaral 5y ago
> he wrongfully alleged that Aditya was knowingly contributing bugs to the kernel, when he was only reporting results from a static analysis research tool. From GKH's response to Pakki's claims: They obviously were _NOT_ created by a static analysis tool that is of any intelligence, as they all are the result of totally different patterns, and all of which are obviously not even fixing anything at all. So what am I supposed to think here, other than that you and your group are continuing to experiment on the kernel community developers by sending such nonsense patches? When submitting patches created by a tool, everyone who does so submits them with wording like "found by tool XXX, we are not sure if this is correct or not, please advise." which is NOT what you did here at all. You were not asking for help, you were claiming that these were legitimate fixes, which you KNEW to be incorrect. A few minutes with anyone with the semblance of knowledge of C can see that your submissions do NOT do anything at all, so to think that a tool created them, and then that you thought they were a valid "fix" is totally negligent on your part, not ours. You are the one at fault, it is not our job to be the test subjects of a tool you create.

xh-dude 5y ago

Aditya should’ve talked to his advisor before suggesting the gatekeepers were, gasp, gatekeeping

staticassertion 5y ago
The hell are you talking about? Aditya submitted patches, and Greg alleged that they were malicious and insulted him repeatedly, completely crossing the line from any reasonable technical review over to a direct attack. Aditya's reputation has suffered massively as a result of doing research to try to help the Linux kernel. These are the facts of the situation.
- HarryHirsch 5y ago
  No, Aditya's reputation has suffered because he is associated with the University of Minnesota. This is what happens when someone screws up, then all their associates get tarred with the same broad brush, no matter how much they were involved. I'm familiar with a case where a faculty member engaged in a case of autoplagiarism and submitted the same paper to two high-profile journals. His graduate students had trouble publishing in reputable journals for years after, and he also earned himself a ban from the national funding agency. For that kind of breach of trust retribution is savage, and that's why you don't engage in it to begin with.
  - staticassertion 5y ago
    I don't want to write out a thought out response to such a joke of a post, so I'll just jot down some notes: 1. Aditya being affiliated with UMN should not damn him to being falsely accused of malice. Greg and others have repeatedly falsely accused Aditya of making malicious contributions, and your answer is "well he goes to UMN"? 2. Plagiarism is irrelevant, as is your entire reference to some unrelated event. 3. Aditya didn't engage in it, though 'savage' is a fine word for how Greg behaved.
    - HarryHirsch 5y ago
      "Joke of a post" is inappropiate. You are saying what perhaps ought to happen (and that's a matter of debate), and I am saying what has happened, I was talking of a past event that happened as described. A professor committed an act of misconduct, and his students suffered for it. Well, it's happening again. That's what happens in a reputation-based environment and it's happening again here. We hope the University of Minnesota offers support to the affected students.
      - staticassertion 5y ago
        Yeah it's utter nonsense. This isn't comparable to plagiarism, and even if it were your story is about a stupid situation just like this one, where innocent, unrelated parties were associated with something they had nothing to do with. That you're somehow saying that this is justified or normal is absurd - we should accuse all students of the university of malice? Everyone tangentially related is guilty? Ridiculous, not even worth arguing against. The university already apologized. Where is Greg's apology? Where is Greg's retraction for falsely accusing Adity?
- xh-dude 5y ago
  Dr. Lu’s research is asking dangerous, thoughtful questions. The answers are sort of unsurprising. It’s not ethical. As I read the discussion archive carefully: 1) A submits patch 2) G suggests a particular patch was “wasting his time”, and that he’s suspicious of this kind of submission from Dr. Lu and UofM. 3) Nearly a day later, A accuses G of ‘wild accusations, bordering on slander’. In fact, no one denies that what G claimed is in fact true - that Dr. Lu and his students had a history of submitting “hypocrite” patches. They published about it! But according to A, it’s G that is being ‘unwelcoming’ and ‘intimidating’, due to ‘preconceived biases’. To me, this is where it starts feeling dramatically personal in nature. 4) I don’t see the language in G’s response to (3) as nearly so personal as (3) itself. It does question A’s professionalism. I’m sympathetic. What was A thinking?
  - nuclearnice1 5y ago
    > In fact, no one denies that what G claimed is in fact true What Greg claims w.r.t. Aditya seems to be false and highly damaging. Greg wrote: “You, and your group, have publicly admitted to sending known-buggy patches to see how the kernel community would react to them” It now appears that Aditya’s patch was submitted in good faith. Greg accused him of intentionally submitting bad patches. That accusation was false. Aditya’s is upset because a powerful figure in the Linux community had made false and damaging accusations against him. Aditya’s reputation has been damaged by Greg’s false accusations. Greg should apologize.
    - xh-dude 5y ago
      Fair enough that Greg can’t know whether Aditya is playing a game. But when Greg says “You, and your group” - it’s surely not Greg’s responsibility to untangle the knot at this point. This comes after Aditya had the opportunity to recognize that Dr. Lu and UofM were on Greg’s radar. There was a window of opportunity for working out the details, having some situational awareness, detangling things. Instead, Aditya just hit back, in a personal and to my mind fairly repugnant way. I maintain he should have talked to Dr. Lu at this point because Dr. Lu could have sought a better resolution at this point. Everyone would be better off. Yeah, Greg seemed angry in response - I think that’s understandable. Should Greg apologize? Sure, why not. But from the skid marks on the road, I’m pretty convinced about who was driving unsafely here.

pritambaral 5y ago

> he wrongfully alleged that Aditya was knowingly contributing bugs to the kernel, when he was only reporting results from a static analysis research tool. From GKH's response to Pakki's claims: They obviously were _NOT_ created by a static analysis tool that is of any intelligence, as they all are the result of totally different patterns, and all of which are obviously not even fixing anything at all. So what am I supposed to think here, other than that you and your group are continuing to experiment on the kernel community developers by sending such nonsense patches? When submitting patches created by a tool, everyone who does so submits them with wording like "found by tool XXX, we are not sure if this is correct or not, please advise." which is NOT what you did here at all. You were not asking for help, you were claiming that these were legitimate fixes, which you KNEW to be incorrect. A few minutes with anyone with the semblance of knowledge of C can see that your submissions do NOT do anything at all, so to think that a tool created them, and then that you thought they were a valid "fix" is totally negligent on your part, not ours. You are the one at fault, it is not our job to be the test subjects of a tool you create.