5 ms·

There are a few issues with blaming someone for sending known malicious patches which just causes confusion and is outright wrong. Brad Spengler is a... charact

There are a few issues with blaming someone for sending known malicious patches which just causes confusion and is outright wrong. Brad Spengler is a... character, but I do agree with him that greg started out on this wrong. (He also goes a bit further with his criticism that I don't agree with). However yes, review of the patches was proper but all this could have been done with less unfounded accusations from gregs side.

neatze 5y ago
Can you provide specifics what do you mean exactly by unfounded accusations ? Really curious who makes unfunded accusations ...
- Foxboron 5y ago
  https://lore.kernel.org/linux-nfs/YH5%2Fi7OvsjSmqADv@kroah.com/ https://lore.kernel.org/linux-nfs/YH5%2Fi7OvsjSmqADv@kroah.c... And the resulting conversations between Aditya Pakki and Greg. Aditya was never part of the hypocrite commit research, accusing them for this is just bad.
  - shadowgovt 5y ago
    That's the problem with bad-faith action by an institution... It casts a shadow on the actions of all the other agents of the institution. Greg's concerns proved to be overblown, but at the time they were raised he had reason to believe them valid.
  - HarryHirsch 5y ago
    The "hypocrite commit" project was using the kernel developers to further Kangjie Lu's career goals. Aditya was using the kernel developers' time to further his research project, his static analyzer. There's no material difference.
  - gnud 5y ago
    That's easy to say now. At the time, UMC had not "debriefed" the kernel maintainers they lied to in the "hypocrite commits". And then Pakki didn't mention that these new patches were generated by a tool, and submitted a bunch of "nonsense" patches with no explanation. What reason did GKH have to trust anyone associated with the "hypocrite commits" at that point? (ps. don't think you deserve all the downvotes here...)
    - Foxboron 5y ago
      I said the same thing then. The pre-print was public at that point and I had been following it since December, sharing thesis adviser doesn't make you associated with research conducted months prior. Yes, they are bad patches and the research is also questionable. But this is not bad faith nor malicious.
fartcannon 5y ago
From the outside, Greg appears to behave like a saint through this enitre process. The university, professors and students involved in this calamity have demonatrated precisely why software developers really need to be bound by ethics.
fartcannon 5y ago
Are you Aditya? You write quite a bit like them. Do you want to take a moment and explain how your broken static anylizer isn't involved?
- Foxboron 5y ago
  Please google me. You'll quickly learn I'm a 26 year old Norwegian FOSS maintainer named "Morten Linderud". Or, y'know. Click on the profile.
  - fartcannon 5y ago
    Passionate! I like it, Morten. It's rare. I did click your profile, but this is a post about deception. Trust no one.

neatze 5y ago

Can you provide specifics what do you mean exactly by unfounded accusations ? Really curious who makes unfunded accusations ...

Foxboron 5y ago
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-nfs/YH5%2Fi7OvsjSmqADv@kroah.com/ https://lore.kernel.org/linux-nfs/YH5%2Fi7OvsjSmqADv@kroah.c... And the resulting conversations between Aditya Pakki and Greg. Aditya was never part of the hypocrite commit research, accusing them for this is just bad.
- shadowgovt 5y ago
  That's the problem with bad-faith action by an institution... It casts a shadow on the actions of all the other agents of the institution. Greg's concerns proved to be overblown, but at the time they were raised he had reason to believe them valid.
- HarryHirsch 5y ago
  The "hypocrite commit" project was using the kernel developers to further Kangjie Lu's career goals. Aditya was using the kernel developers' time to further his research project, his static analyzer. There's no material difference.
- gnud 5y ago
  That's easy to say now. At the time, UMC had not "debriefed" the kernel maintainers they lied to in the "hypocrite commits". And then Pakki didn't mention that these new patches were generated by a tool, and submitted a bunch of "nonsense" patches with no explanation. What reason did GKH have to trust anyone associated with the "hypocrite commits" at that point? (ps. don't think you deserve all the downvotes here...)
  - Foxboron 5y ago
    I said the same thing then. The pre-print was public at that point and I had been following it since December, sharing thesis adviser doesn't make you associated with research conducted months prior. Yes, they are bad patches and the research is also questionable. But this is not bad faith nor malicious.

fartcannon 5y ago

From the outside, Greg appears to behave like a saint through this enitre process. The university, professors and students involved in this calamity have demonatrated precisely why software developers really need to be bound by ethics.

fartcannon 5y ago

Are you Aditya? You write quite a bit like them. Do you want to take a moment and explain how your broken static anylizer isn't involved?

Foxboron 5y ago
Please google me. You'll quickly learn I'm a 26 year old Norwegian FOSS maintainer named "Morten Linderud". Or, y'know. Click on the profile.
- fartcannon 5y ago
  Passionate! I like it, Morten. It's rare. I did click your profile, but this is a post about deception. Trust no one.