6 ms·

Oh yes I completely agree UMN deserves the ban. The code review process for Linux kernel commits clearly needs to be improved as well. Hence "both can be true

Oh yes I completely agree UMN deserves the ban. The code review process for Linux kernel commits clearly needs to be improved as well. Hence "both can be true".

dcow 5y ago
Did you read the LWN article and the TAB statement? > The writing of a paper on this research [PDF] was not the immediate cause of the recent events; instead, it was the posting of a buggy patch originating from an experimental static-analysis tool run by another developer at UMN. That led developers in the kernel community to suspect that the effort to submit intentionally malicious patches was still ongoing. Since then, it has become apparent that this is not the case, but by the time the full story became clear, the discussion was already running at full speed. and > The LF Technical Advisory Board is taking a look at the history of UMN's contributions and their associated research projects. At present, it seems the vast majority of patches have been in good faith, but we're continuing to review the work. Several public conversations have already started around our expectations of contributors. The recent shit storm was not caused by a malicious act on the part of anybody at UMN. The "overworked" maintainers made a mistake and ascribed malice to the actions of a good-faith contributor who also happened to be from UMN. I still see people in this thread assuming that UMN has some history of submitting malicious patches and the wholesale ban is a justifiable response. That response might be justified if some internal ethical system at UMN is broken, but that is not the case, at least here. This history is clean save the one incident regarding the research paper, which has been withdrawn.
- nominated1 5y ago
  > The recent shit storm was not caused by a malicious act on the part of anybody at UMN. The "overworked" maintainers made a mistake and ascribed malice to the actions of a good-faith contributor who also happened to be from UMN This is not true and is explained in the article: > That said, there are multiple definitions of "malice". To some of the developers involved, posting unverified patches from an experimental static-analysis tool without disclosing their nature is a malicious act. It is another form of experiment involving non-consenting humans. This is the “recent shit storm” and can in no way be described as “good-faith” particularly after the disgusting response from the researcher after being called out on their shit.
  - staticassertion 5y ago
    This is so very frustrating, and why I wish the LWN article more strongly explained how wrong Greg was. > particularly after the disgusting response from the researcher after being called out on their shit. The researcher was slandered publicly by Greg. Greg repeatedly accuses the maintainer of purposefully submitting malicious patches, which he NEVER did. Greg also does so in an extraordinarily insulting way, diminishing the student's skillset, somewhat ironically as the student's research did in fact find bugs in the kernel. The researcher very rightfully responded the way he did - by calling out the slanderous remarks and removing himself from the Linux Kernel, a project that will no longer benefit from his contributions (which, if you bothered to look into, are far better than Greg gave credit for). Greg is very much in the wrong here. He is the one who made repeated false accusations. Please do not continue the very unfortunate attacks against a student who was only trying to submit good-faith patches to the kernel.
    - HarryHirsch 5y ago
      You omitted the fact that Aditya's advisor was Kangjie Lu, who ran the research project with the bogus patches. It would be natural to assume that anything from that general direction would be more of the same.
      - staticassertion 5y ago
        I didn't "omit it", it's irrelevant. It obviously would not be natural since it was incorrect, and a natural response would not be to throw blind, incorrect allegations and ridiculous insults due to a suspicion. Greg overreacted. Linus agrees, other kernel maintainers agree. The only person who won't come out and admit it is Greg himself, and his overreaction has cost the kernel a valuable asset as well as the reputation of an innocent researcher, who now gets comments like "they're disgusting" from people who took Greg's accusations at face value.
        silly-silly 5y ago
        So, there is a code of conduct.. https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/code-of-conduct.html https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/code-of-condu...

Oh yes I completely agree UMN deserves the ban. The code review process for Linux kernel commits clearly needs to be improved as well. Hence "both can be true".

dcow 5y ago

Did you read the LWN article and the TAB statement? > The writing of a paper on this research [PDF] was not the immediate cause of the recent events; instead, it was the posting of a buggy patch originating from an experimental static-analysis tool run by another developer at UMN. That led developers in the kernel community to suspect that the effort to submit intentionally malicious patches was still ongoing. Since then, it has become apparent that this is not the case, but by the time the full story became clear, the discussion was already running at full speed. and > The LF Technical Advisory Board is taking a look at the history of UMN's contributions and their associated research projects. At present, it seems the vast majority of patches have been in good faith, but we're continuing to review the work. Several public conversations have already started around our expectations of contributors. The recent shit storm was not caused by a malicious act on the part of anybody at UMN. The "overworked" maintainers made a mistake and ascribed malice to the actions of a good-faith contributor who also happened to be from UMN. I still see people in this thread assuming that UMN has some history of submitting malicious patches and the wholesale ban is a justifiable response. That response might be justified if some internal ethical system at UMN is broken, but that is not the case, at least here. This history is clean save the one incident regarding the research paper, which has been withdrawn.

nominated1 5y ago
> The recent shit storm was not caused by a malicious act on the part of anybody at UMN. The "overworked" maintainers made a mistake and ascribed malice to the actions of a good-faith contributor who also happened to be from UMN This is not true and is explained in the article: > That said, there are multiple definitions of "malice". To some of the developers involved, posting unverified patches from an experimental static-analysis tool without disclosing their nature is a malicious act. It is another form of experiment involving non-consenting humans. This is the “recent shit storm” and can in no way be described as “good-faith” particularly after the disgusting response from the researcher after being called out on their shit.
- staticassertion 5y ago
  This is so very frustrating, and why I wish the LWN article more strongly explained how wrong Greg was. > particularly after the disgusting response from the researcher after being called out on their shit. The researcher was slandered publicly by Greg. Greg repeatedly accuses the maintainer of purposefully submitting malicious patches, which he NEVER did. Greg also does so in an extraordinarily insulting way, diminishing the student's skillset, somewhat ironically as the student's research did in fact find bugs in the kernel. The researcher very rightfully responded the way he did - by calling out the slanderous remarks and removing himself from the Linux Kernel, a project that will no longer benefit from his contributions (which, if you bothered to look into, are far better than Greg gave credit for). Greg is very much in the wrong here. He is the one who made repeated false accusations. Please do not continue the very unfortunate attacks against a student who was only trying to submit good-faith patches to the kernel.
  - HarryHirsch 5y ago
    You omitted the fact that Aditya's advisor was Kangjie Lu, who ran the research project with the bogus patches. It would be natural to assume that anything from that general direction would be more of the same.
    - staticassertion 5y ago
      I didn't "omit it", it's irrelevant. It obviously would not be natural since it was incorrect, and a natural response would not be to throw blind, incorrect allegations and ridiculous insults due to a suspicion. Greg overreacted. Linus agrees, other kernel maintainers agree. The only person who won't come out and admit it is Greg himself, and his overreaction has cost the kernel a valuable asset as well as the reputation of an innocent researcher, who now gets comments like "they're disgusting" from people who took Greg's accusations at face value.
      - silly-silly 5y ago
        So, there is a code of conduct.. https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/code-of-conduct.html https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/code-of-condu...