3 ms·

> . It is very streamlined and built into the Git code itself and mail clients that are actively maintained like Mutt. Just because you can't imagine what life

> . It is very streamlined and built into the Git code itself and mail clients that are actively maintained like Mutt. Just because you can't imagine what life would be like without Gmail doesn't mean that these maintainers are less efficient and antiquated than you are. You assume that there are not other tools to submit code and participate in discussion. That's obviously not true. Also the argument that "it is supported with git" is just a non-argument. > Don't even know what this means. What coding standard is based on old TTY terminals? TTY is part of Linux. You obviously don't know indeed. 80 lines comes from old teletype writers: http://www.navy-radio.com/tty.htm http://www.navy-radio.com/tty.htm And even Linus disagreed recently (http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/2005.3/08168.html http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/2005.3/08168.html) but the limit was only increased to 100 columns. So yeah. > Linux is the most widely used OS in enterprise. The internet runs on Linux. And? > If you want unit tests for everyone then start an open source project to do this, or complain about the enterprises that aren't testing. That's just arguing from a position of power. There is an open source project by the way, named kunit, but it's obviously left as an afterthought. Testing is left to "community testing" which is just a way of saying "compile the whole thing, test the whole thing, let's wish somebody caught most bugs", which is just the naive way of doing things before automated testing became popular in the early 2000s. > Who is toxic? I love Linus's approach. It has allowed him to get things done without toxic people in the community trying to social engineer their way into destroying something good. There are tons of other successful open source projects that do have to rely on base insults and abuse. The fact that the way the Linux kernel hasn't changed a bit for 30 years just shows how much its community is intolerant to ideas.

tankenmate 5y ago
> You assume that there are not other tools to submit code and participate in discussion. That's obviously not true. Also the argument that "it is supported with git" is just a non-argument. git was developed as a tool to support linux kernel development, why would you not support the right tool for the job? git was (and is) better than all the alternatives and is why kernel developers have stuck with it. I guess if git offends you could just use patch files. Or write something that is obviously so much better that people naturally switch to it.
- TeeMassive 5y ago
  I'm not even arguing against git, what are you talking about? I'm only pointing out how the Linux kernel development is the only project (except maybe some GNU projects) that still insists on using archaic stuff, like sending email with patches. And if fact I remember reading about a maintainer of a GNU project which I don't remember the name renting about how he's pretty much the only maintaining the project. There's also a project to get people up and running to contribute the kernel code base, most people stops at the email stuff. It's not like those things do not have tangible consequences. And so far I've never seen good counterarguments except snark and logical fallacies in the form of "it always been that way" and "just start your own" which only reinforces my point about toxic leaders.
eitland 5y ago
Let's see here: There's a whole community of otherwise often cutthroat rivals cooperating somewhat peacefully on a truly giant software infrastructure project for 25+ years. A place where no one even asks about your skin colour, gender, religion or other abilities as long as you can submit correct code in a way that everyone is comfortable with. I'm fairly certain even Donald Trump, bin Laden, a seven year old school girl or a gay albino penguin could all get a patch accepted if the patch was OK. Edit: I'm fairly certain even Iranian and Israelian coders could get patches merged in the same release and nobody would even notice. Maybe it has even happened a number of times already for what I know. Same goes for hardcore Atheists, Buddhists, Catholics, Hindus, and what have you. We can't even know because the kernel people do not keep notes about that. Then there are people coming from the outside trying to insert themselves as authorities not only on what tooling should be used but also as moral authorities down to the level of deciding on what language should be used. Who were toxic did you say?
- TeeMassive 5y ago
  > There's a whole community of otherwise often cutthroat rivals cooperating somewhat peacefully on a truly giant software infrastructure project for 25+ years. That just appealing to tradition. There are other open source projects with "cutthroat rivals cooperating" who do not insist on keeping archaic systems. It's not like the viral close of the GPL will cease to exist and enforce public contributions of useful projects just because patches are not sent by stripped down emails anymore. > A place where no one even asks about your skin colour, gender, religion or other abilities as long as you can submit correct code in a way that everyone is comfortable with. I'm fairly certain even Donald Trump, bin Laden, a seven year old school girl or a gay albino penguin could all get a patch accepted if the patch was OK. Edit: I'm fairly certain even Iranian and Israelian coders could get patches merged in the same release and nobody would even notice. Maybe it has even happened a number of times already for what I know. Same goes for hardcore Atheists, Buddhists, Catholics, Hindus, and what have you. We can't even know because the kernel people do not keep notes about that. I never made the argument that they reject people based on their ethnic or religious background, why are you even bringing this up? Toxicity is not limited to being xenophobic... > Then there are people coming from the outside trying to insert themselves as authorities not only on what tooling should be used but also as moral authorities down to the level of deciding on what language should be used. That's just appealing to tradition and if we weren't talking about software I would be under the impression I was debating a hardcore conservative renting against "outsiders" but I digress. It's not like critique from the "outside" can't be insightful. And frankly when people immediately become defensive and feel that someone threaten them with their "moral authority" for a simple critique, it only shows that they do not talk from a position of confidence.

tankenmate 5y ago

> You assume that there are not other tools to submit code and participate in discussion. That's obviously not true. Also the argument that "it is supported with git" is just a non-argument. git was developed as a tool to support linux kernel development, why would you not support the right tool for the job? git was (and is) better than all the alternatives and is why kernel developers have stuck with it. I guess if git offends you could just use patch files. Or write something that is obviously so much better that people naturally switch to it.

TeeMassive 5y ago
I'm not even arguing against git, what are you talking about? I'm only pointing out how the Linux kernel development is the only project (except maybe some GNU projects) that still insists on using archaic stuff, like sending email with patches. And if fact I remember reading about a maintainer of a GNU project which I don't remember the name renting about how he's pretty much the only maintaining the project. There's also a project to get people up and running to contribute the kernel code base, most people stops at the email stuff. It's not like those things do not have tangible consequences. And so far I've never seen good counterarguments except snark and logical fallacies in the form of "it always been that way" and "just start your own" which only reinforces my point about toxic leaders.

eitland 5y ago

Let's see here: There's a whole community of otherwise often cutthroat rivals cooperating somewhat peacefully on a truly giant software infrastructure project for 25+ years. A place where no one even asks about your skin colour, gender, religion or other abilities as long as you can submit correct code in a way that everyone is comfortable with. I'm fairly certain even Donald Trump, bin Laden, a seven year old school girl or a gay albino penguin could all get a patch accepted if the patch was OK. Edit: I'm fairly certain even Iranian and Israelian coders could get patches merged in the same release and nobody would even notice. Maybe it has even happened a number of times already for what I know. Same goes for hardcore Atheists, Buddhists, Catholics, Hindus, and what have you. We can't even know because the kernel people do not keep notes about that. Then there are people coming from the outside trying to insert themselves as authorities not only on what tooling should be used but also as moral authorities down to the level of deciding on what language should be used. Who were toxic did you say?

TeeMassive 5y ago
> There's a whole community of otherwise often cutthroat rivals cooperating somewhat peacefully on a truly giant software infrastructure project for 25+ years. That just appealing to tradition. There are other open source projects with "cutthroat rivals cooperating" who do not insist on keeping archaic systems. It's not like the viral close of the GPL will cease to exist and enforce public contributions of useful projects just because patches are not sent by stripped down emails anymore. > A place where no one even asks about your skin colour, gender, religion or other abilities as long as you can submit correct code in a way that everyone is comfortable with. I'm fairly certain even Donald Trump, bin Laden, a seven year old school girl or a gay albino penguin could all get a patch accepted if the patch was OK. Edit: I'm fairly certain even Iranian and Israelian coders could get patches merged in the same release and nobody would even notice. Maybe it has even happened a number of times already for what I know. Same goes for hardcore Atheists, Buddhists, Catholics, Hindus, and what have you. We can't even know because the kernel people do not keep notes about that. I never made the argument that they reject people based on their ethnic or religious background, why are you even bringing this up? Toxicity is not limited to being xenophobic... > Then there are people coming from the outside trying to insert themselves as authorities not only on what tooling should be used but also as moral authorities down to the level of deciding on what language should be used. That's just appealing to tradition and if we weren't talking about software I would be under the impression I was debating a hardcore conservative renting against "outsiders" but I digress. It's not like critique from the "outside" can't be insightful. And frankly when people immediately become defensive and feel that someone threaten them with their "moral authority" for a simple critique, it only shows that they do not talk from a position of confidence.