3 ms·

> Citation needed. Scroll Up. Find https://lwn.net/Articles/854319/ https://lwn.net/Articles/854319/ point 2 Consider: Aditya is not an author on the hypocri

> Citation needed. Scroll Up. Find https://lwn.net/Articles/854319/ https://lwn.net/Articles/854319/ point 2 Consider: Aditya is not an author on the hypocrite commits paper. Aditya admitted his “garbage” commit when made aware it was not correct. Aditya is author of other papers on static analysis. Aditya’s other commits have generally survived this bulk review. Aditya maintains his claims even as other members of UMN have explained their role in the hypocrite commits. Aditya’s commits come from a UMN address where as hypocrite commits came from gmail. It seems likely Aditya is a bad static analyst not a malicious committer. Greg’s accusations: > You, and your group, have publicly admitted to sending known-buggy patches [1] The “you” there is false. Aditya consistently denied being part of the research they has Greg so worked up. Greg also wrote: > Please stop submitting known-invalid patches. [2] The evidence above strongly suggests Aditya never did that. Greg KH has accused Aditya of submitting known buggy patches. Aditya did not do that. Greg should apologize to Aditya for the false accusation. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-nfs/YH%2FfM%2FTsbmcZzwnX@kroah.com/ https://lore.kernel.org/linux-nfs/YH%2FfM%2FTsbmcZzwnX@kroah... [2] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-nfs/YH5%2Fi7OvsjSmqADv@kroah.com/ https://lore.kernel.org/linux-nfs/YH5%2Fi7OvsjSmqADv@kroah.c...

staticassertion 5y ago
They're idiot cultists, they won't listen to facts.
- pritambaral 5y ago
  Such radical generalisation isn't helping anyone. It contributes nothing but discouragement at best, and spite and bile at worst, to the conversation. Twitter is nearly a lost cause; let's not turn this place into that too. I have plainly put forth evidence and openly asked for evidence. Emotional outrage is not a fair return.
  - staticassertion 5y ago
    The evidence is all out there in the open, I've linked and quoted repeatedly throughout here, and there's a link in the header to UMN's response. The bias is so blatant, as always - the Linux community continues to refuse to hold maintainers accountable. If people can't be bothered to read the evidence I'm not going to continue to discuss this in good faith.
    - pritambaral 5y ago
      > The evidence is all out there in the open But, clearly, not everyone is reading the same things. How could they? Humans aren't a hivemind. I understand that other people can have read different things than I have, that they can have a different view of things than I do, so I present my side of the argument with the evidence that I can find. Even given the same evidence, I understand that other people can have different interpretations of them, so I present my interpretations while asking for theirs, in the hope that they're sensible people. > I've linked and quoted repeatedly throughout here Your discourse with me here has consisted solely of you calling me names (specifically, "idiot cultist") and complaining about other people. Other people that you passive-aggressively lump me into. > there's a link in the header to UMN's response. Plenty have seen and read it. I don't know what point you're trying to make by alluding to a curt announcement that can be reduced to "we've paused the research group's activities and are looking into the matter". Or perhaps you meant to point to the professor's response instead of UMN's. You and I clearly aren't reading it the same way, but I did not bring it up in our discussion and I do not want to now because I do not believe you are being sensible here. > The bias is so blatant, as always - the Linux community continues to refuse to hold maintainers accountable. Whatever their crimes are, your behaviour here has been unmitigably worse, and you refuse to hold yourself accountable. > If people can't be bothered to read the evidence I'm not going to continue to discuss this in good faith. You haven't been. But, what's worse, you've been trying to prevent others (like me and the person you replied to when you called me an "idiot cultist") from doing so as well.
  - nuclearnice1 5y ago
    I posted the evidence above but you didn’t really engage with it much. Do you think Aditya was acting in bad faith?
pritambaral 5y ago
> https://lwn.net/Articles/854319/ https://lwn.net/Articles/854319/ point 2 That is the opinion of Al Viro, who's one Linux contributor. It does not prove that Pakki was unaware his "patches were utter crap", but does accuse him of being academically dishonest and negligent.
- nuclearnice1 5y ago
  No of course it doesn’t prove anything about Aditya’s state of mind. That’s not something we can really expect to *prove* per se, but it’s supporting evidence. As I said it *appears* he was acting in good faith. It’s one person reaching the conclusion Aditya’s work was clumsy not malicious. I listed a bunch of reasons why I also believe that to be so. Do you disagree? What evidence do you see that Aditya’s commits were malicious? Do you agree with the evidence I listed above?
  - pritambaral 5y ago
    > No of course it doesn’t prove anything about Aditya’s state of mind. That’s not something we can really expect to prove per se But you make plenty of statements claiming it's been proven. > but it’s supporting evidence. As I said it appears he was acting in good faith. To one (1) person in the group of Linux core contributors. There are multiple others that do not agree with him, from among the same group of people, and just as qualified, as your person. > I listed a bunch of reasons why I also believe that to be so. > Do you disagree? What evidence do you see that Aditya’s commits were malicious? I do disagree. The evidence that I see (and find myself agreeing with): 1. The work itself. It is so badly broken that I have to suspect foul play. And Greg's right when claiming that, if Pakki did not know the code he was submitting was broken, he had to have been horribly negligent or incompetent. 2. When presenting the patches, he tried to pass them off as his own. When the flaws were pointed out, then he reveals that the work wasn't his but that of a poorly written automated program. This sounds awfully like an excuse, and a poor one at that. 3. His first response to being called out was to play the "innocent victim" card, with barely an attempt to explain why he submitted code so badly broken. I also disagree with his passive-aggressive, subtly-hidden, claim that it was because he was just "a newbie and a non-expert". 4. I do agree that GKH was quite aggressive in labelling Pakki's work, and that he had no direct evidence for it, but he also explained his reasoning and supplied supporting evidence (I have quoted both in my GP comment), and I find it reasonable for a person in his position (i.e., an unwitting subject of an unethical human experiment) to feel that way. For these reasons, and for the close association of Pakki and Prof. Lu (who I believe still does not see or accept any wrongdoing on his part), I cannot yet rule out the possibility, nor do I think it is low, that Pakki was also participating in a new, similar experiment. I am not excusing GKH's rush to conclusion either, though I understand what led him to it. But the matter is still ongoing, though sadly not in public anymore, so I am waiting to see how everyone acts moving forward. > Do you agree with the evidence I listed above? I agree partially with some of them. Not enough to reach a conclusion like you. Some of the rest of it, I think, actually points the other way. For example, the claim that "Aditya’s other commits have generally survived this bulk review" begs the question: If Pakki has demonstrated competence enough for some of his commits to survive subsequent close inspections by experts, then how could he have allowed patches as poor as the ones that sparked this whole brouhaha? As for the rest of the "evidence" you listed: I simply cannot accept them as evidence, rather as just unsubstantiated claims and expert opinions. The latter has value, though not enough yet to settle the question.

staticassertion 5y ago

They're idiot cultists, they won't listen to facts.

pritambaral 5y ago
Such radical generalisation isn't helping anyone. It contributes nothing but discouragement at best, and spite and bile at worst, to the conversation. Twitter is nearly a lost cause; let's not turn this place into that too. I have plainly put forth evidence and openly asked for evidence. Emotional outrage is not a fair return.
- staticassertion 5y ago
  The evidence is all out there in the open, I've linked and quoted repeatedly throughout here, and there's a link in the header to UMN's response. The bias is so blatant, as always - the Linux community continues to refuse to hold maintainers accountable. If people can't be bothered to read the evidence I'm not going to continue to discuss this in good faith.
  - pritambaral 5y ago
    > The evidence is all out there in the open But, clearly, not everyone is reading the same things. How could they? Humans aren't a hivemind. I understand that other people can have read different things than I have, that they can have a different view of things than I do, so I present my side of the argument with the evidence that I can find. Even given the same evidence, I understand that other people can have different interpretations of them, so I present my interpretations while asking for theirs, in the hope that they're sensible people. > I've linked and quoted repeatedly throughout here Your discourse with me here has consisted solely of you calling me names (specifically, "idiot cultist") and complaining about other people. Other people that you passive-aggressively lump me into. > there's a link in the header to UMN's response. Plenty have seen and read it. I don't know what point you're trying to make by alluding to a curt announcement that can be reduced to "we've paused the research group's activities and are looking into the matter". Or perhaps you meant to point to the professor's response instead of UMN's. You and I clearly aren't reading it the same way, but I did not bring it up in our discussion and I do not want to now because I do not believe you are being sensible here. > The bias is so blatant, as always - the Linux community continues to refuse to hold maintainers accountable. Whatever their crimes are, your behaviour here has been unmitigably worse, and you refuse to hold yourself accountable. > If people can't be bothered to read the evidence I'm not going to continue to discuss this in good faith. You haven't been. But, what's worse, you've been trying to prevent others (like me and the person you replied to when you called me an "idiot cultist") from doing so as well.
- nuclearnice1 5y ago
  I posted the evidence above but you didn’t really engage with it much. Do you think Aditya was acting in bad faith?

pritambaral 5y ago

> https://lwn.net/Articles/854319/ https://lwn.net/Articles/854319/ point 2 That is the opinion of Al Viro, who's one Linux contributor. It does not prove that Pakki was unaware his "patches were utter crap", but does accuse him of being academically dishonest and negligent.

nuclearnice1 5y ago
No of course it doesn’t prove anything about Aditya’s state of mind. That’s not something we can really expect to *prove* per se, but it’s supporting evidence. As I said it *appears* he was acting in good faith. It’s one person reaching the conclusion Aditya’s work was clumsy not malicious. I listed a bunch of reasons why I also believe that to be so. Do you disagree? What evidence do you see that Aditya’s commits were malicious? Do you agree with the evidence I listed above?
- pritambaral 5y ago
  > No of course it doesn’t prove anything about Aditya’s state of mind. That’s not something we can really expect to prove per se But you make plenty of statements claiming it's been proven. > but it’s supporting evidence. As I said it appears he was acting in good faith. To one (1) person in the group of Linux core contributors. There are multiple others that do not agree with him, from among the same group of people, and just as qualified, as your person. > I listed a bunch of reasons why I also believe that to be so. > Do you disagree? What evidence do you see that Aditya’s commits were malicious? I do disagree. The evidence that I see (and find myself agreeing with): 1. The work itself. It is so badly broken that I have to suspect foul play. And Greg's right when claiming that, if Pakki did not know the code he was submitting was broken, he had to have been horribly negligent or incompetent. 2. When presenting the patches, he tried to pass them off as his own. When the flaws were pointed out, then he reveals that the work wasn't his but that of a poorly written automated program. This sounds awfully like an excuse, and a poor one at that. 3. His first response to being called out was to play the "innocent victim" card, with barely an attempt to explain why he submitted code so badly broken. I also disagree with his passive-aggressive, subtly-hidden, claim that it was because he was just "a newbie and a non-expert". 4. I do agree that GKH was quite aggressive in labelling Pakki's work, and that he had no direct evidence for it, but he also explained his reasoning and supplied supporting evidence (I have quoted both in my GP comment), and I find it reasonable for a person in his position (i.e., an unwitting subject of an unethical human experiment) to feel that way. For these reasons, and for the close association of Pakki and Prof. Lu (who I believe still does not see or accept any wrongdoing on his part), I cannot yet rule out the possibility, nor do I think it is low, that Pakki was also participating in a new, similar experiment. I am not excusing GKH's rush to conclusion either, though I understand what led him to it. But the matter is still ongoing, though sadly not in public anymore, so I am waiting to see how everyone acts moving forward. > Do you agree with the evidence I listed above? I agree partially with some of them. Not enough to reach a conclusion like you. Some of the rest of it, I think, actually points the other way. For example, the claim that "Aditya’s other commits have generally survived this bulk review" begs the question: If Pakki has demonstrated competence enough for some of his commits to survive subsequent close inspections by experts, then how could he have allowed patches as poor as the ones that sparked this whole brouhaha? As for the rest of the "evidence" you listed: I simply cannot accept them as evidence, rather as just unsubstantiated claims and expert opinions. The latter has value, though not enough yet to settle the question.