4 ms·

Any rationale why he hates unit test ?

encryptluks2 5y ago
He doesn't, he just wants the billion dollar enterprises to be testing it not the kernel team which are more of an academic community. Makes sense to me.
- bitcharmer 5y ago
  It doesn't make much sense to me. There is nothing positive in forfeiting principles of good software engineering in the name of falsely perceived imbalance of stakes in the project. Instead of falling back on the biggest beneficiaries of the project for testing, we should have a participation model that welcomes contributions and improvements at all stages of development. I've contributed to the kernel multiple times over the last few years and it was always a pain to some degree. Sometimes due to outdated contribution model, sometimes because of maintainer's personal preferences and allegiances. Sadly current kernel dev culture still promotes exclusion and building walls instead of reducing tension and removing barriers for entry.
  - unglaublich 5y ago
    They do welcome contributions at all stages. Just because it doesn't happen at your terms doesn't make it exclusive or about building walls. Do you think there is a contribution model that will make everyone happy AND the kernel good?
    - bitcharmer 5y ago
      > Just because it doesn't happen at your terms That's a good example of the toxic attitude I'm referring to. I never said anything about my terms. Just a healthy OSS ecosystem with more balanced control over what and how gets done. > Do you think there is a contribution model that will make everyone happy I don't know, do you? It'd be safe to assume however that the Linux project could benefit from some improvements. Or are you trying to suggest it's perfect in its current form?
      - janto 5y ago
        It's safer to assume that what you perceive as toxic is actually working much better than what you have in mind, given the success of the Linux ecosystem.
        bitcharmer 5y ago
        The level of toxicity and success are orthogonal. The warehouse part of Amazon's business is even more successful and more toxic (as a workplace) at the same time. So what is the point you are trying to make here?
        TeMPOraL 5y ago
        Depends on the metric of success you pick. Comparing Linux Kernel to Amazon warehouse business is apples to elephants. Amazon's warehousing is successful financially, perhaps less so reputationally, but the workers in general aren't very happy about the conditions - and they're not exactly volunteers[0]. A proprietary business is also by definition extremely exclusive - it's not like Amazon will give you their blueprints and operations book for free, to help you start your semi-automated warehouse, and it won't let you contribute to their business either, without a great degree of vetting. Meanwhile, Linux Kernel is built by true volunteers, and is successful in terms of spread and reliability as a software engineering artifact. Its process is very much inclusive - they'll accept just about anything that contributes positively to the final artifact, according to goals the "core team" defines[1], without much regard for who you are or where are you from. The people contributing regularly don't seem to complain about conditions either. There's no actual toxicity in there. Unfortunately, in recent years it's become popular for people to call out anything they don't like as "toxic". It often reads like a 5 year old complaining that their grandma makes them wear a hat outside in winter[2]. I've never heard that Linus "just wants the billion dollar enterprises to be testing it not the kernel team which are more of an academic community", but I can see this as a valid point of view. Neither him nor the other early Linux Kernel contributors wanted the whole planetary economy to become critically dependent on their little project. They don't automatically inherit responsibility for everyone else - especially that the whole project is open and inclusive, so anyone who wants to help can help - for instance by creating their own test suites and using it to create and submit bugfixes. -- [0] - Not in the ways that matter. Sure, they've approached Amazon on their own, but they did that only because they don't have any better way of housing and feeding themselves and their kin. The market may not be putting a literal gun to your head, but that doesn't make economic desperation less of a threat to life. [1] - Without that part, you'd have a ball of mud, not a software project. [2] - Though every now and then, the "toxicity" line is more like playing with a WMD. Like a 5 year old who thinks threatening to call CPS on their parents for not giving them candy is being clever.
  - the_duke 5y ago
    I used to have the same opinion, but I think for Linux it actually makes sense. A large, automated test suite places a lot of extra burden on contributors and maintainers. You will be expected to run tests, fix old tests, investigate flaky tests, and write new ones that cover your bug fix or new feature. The kernel instead pushes the responsibility for writing test suites and validating new releases onto first Line consumers like Red Hat, IBM, Google etc all. This is probably the only viable way to make it work. Maintainer resources are stretched thin as it is.
- dominotw 5y ago
  unit testing != QA testing

He doesn't, he just wants the billion dollar enterprises to be testing it not the kernel team which are more of an academic community. Makes sense to me.

bitcharmer 5y ago
It doesn't make much sense to me. There is nothing positive in forfeiting principles of good software engineering in the name of falsely perceived imbalance of stakes in the project. Instead of falling back on the biggest beneficiaries of the project for testing, we should have a participation model that welcomes contributions and improvements at all stages of development. I've contributed to the kernel multiple times over the last few years and it was always a pain to some degree. Sometimes due to outdated contribution model, sometimes because of maintainer's personal preferences and allegiances. Sadly current kernel dev culture still promotes exclusion and building walls instead of reducing tension and removing barriers for entry.
- unglaublich 5y ago
  They do welcome contributions at all stages. Just because it doesn't happen at your terms doesn't make it exclusive or about building walls. Do you think there is a contribution model that will make everyone happy AND the kernel good?
  - bitcharmer 5y ago
    > Just because it doesn't happen at your terms That's a good example of the toxic attitude I'm referring to. I never said anything about my terms. Just a healthy OSS ecosystem with more balanced control over what and how gets done. > Do you think there is a contribution model that will make everyone happy I don't know, do you? It'd be safe to assume however that the Linux project could benefit from some improvements. Or are you trying to suggest it's perfect in its current form?
    - janto 5y ago
      It's safer to assume that what you perceive as toxic is actually working much better than what you have in mind, given the success of the Linux ecosystem.
      - bitcharmer 5y ago
        The level of toxicity and success are orthogonal. The warehouse part of Amazon's business is even more successful and more toxic (as a workplace) at the same time. So what is the point you are trying to make here?
        TeMPOraL 5y ago
        Depends on the metric of success you pick. Comparing Linux Kernel to Amazon warehouse business is apples to elephants. Amazon's warehousing is successful financially, perhaps less so reputationally, but the workers in general aren't very happy about the conditions - and they're not exactly volunteers[0]. A proprietary business is also by definition extremely exclusive - it's not like Amazon will give you their blueprints and operations book for free, to help you start your semi-automated warehouse, and it won't let you contribute to their business either, without a great degree of vetting. Meanwhile, Linux Kernel is built by true volunteers, and is successful in terms of spread and reliability as a software engineering artifact. Its process is very much inclusive - they'll accept just about anything that contributes positively to the final artifact, according to goals the "core team" defines[1], without much regard for who you are or where are you from. The people contributing regularly don't seem to complain about conditions either. There's no actual toxicity in there. Unfortunately, in recent years it's become popular for people to call out anything they don't like as "toxic". It often reads like a 5 year old complaining that their grandma makes them wear a hat outside in winter[2]. I've never heard that Linus "just wants the billion dollar enterprises to be testing it not the kernel team which are more of an academic community", but I can see this as a valid point of view. Neither him nor the other early Linux Kernel contributors wanted the whole planetary economy to become critically dependent on their little project. They don't automatically inherit responsibility for everyone else - especially that the whole project is open and inclusive, so anyone who wants to help can help - for instance by creating their own test suites and using it to create and submit bugfixes. -- [0] - Not in the ways that matter. Sure, they've approached Amazon on their own, but they did that only because they don't have any better way of housing and feeding themselves and their kin. The market may not be putting a literal gun to your head, but that doesn't make economic desperation less of a threat to life. [1] - Without that part, you'd have a ball of mud, not a software project. [2] - Though every now and then, the "toxicity" line is more like playing with a WMD. Like a 5 year old who thinks threatening to call CPS on their parents for not giving them candy is being clever.
- the_duke 5y ago
  I used to have the same opinion, but I think for Linux it actually makes sense. A large, automated test suite places a lot of extra burden on contributors and maintainers. You will be expected to run tests, fix old tests, investigate flaky tests, and write new ones that cover your bug fix or new feature. The kernel instead pushes the responsibility for writing test suites and validating new releases onto first Line consumers like Red Hat, IBM, Google etc all. This is probably the only viable way to make it work. Maintainer resources are stretched thin as it is.
dominotw 5y ago
unit testing != QA testing