5 ms·

A really one sided take. The Non dev was being abusive in public threads and even nastier in private mails to various Linux Audio devs. The full story is on t

A really one sided take. The Non dev was being abusive in public threads and even nastier in private mails to various Linux Audio devs. The full story is on the archives of the Linux Audio Development and Consortium mailing lists. Folk should come visit #lad (Linux/Libre) on Libera.Chat.

explorigin 5y ago
(citation needed)
- fgonzag 5y ago
  He literally stated where you can find the information.
  - pantalaimon 5y ago
    Hyperlinks were invented for a reason.
    - quickthrower2 5y ago
      For people at CERN to make bold claims, with citations
  - roenxi 5y ago
    He hasn't provided a citation. He's told someone they can do their own research an a mailing list. A parallel might be me claiming that we have a highly algorithm for factoring large primes and saying you can look it up on arxiv.org - I've pointed at a repository of knowledge, but not actually cited why I believe the fact. Providing a citation is pointing at a specific place where the information came from at the smallest granular level. In this case, a citation would be something like links to specific threads.
    - mxmilkiib 5y ago
      Your analogy is way off in terms of scale. Edit: also, I've no obligation to provide a citation, I'm one of those that's bored by this particular drama, folk can go search for posts of they want, I've given enough to go by.
- AussieWog93 5y ago
  >(citation needed) >The full story is on the archives of the Linux Audio Development and Consortium mailing lists.
  - bosswipe 5y ago
    How can you trust the mailing lost when the accused are the heavy-handed moderators of that list?
test_epsilon 5y ago
It is one sided, by definition. However creating a fork with the same acronym and name for the daemon or binaries or whatever seems pretty under-handed. Was a release announcement for the original software moderated, on a list where release announcements had been posted without moderation before the fork? Was the author banned from lists?
- viraptor 5y ago
  The same acronym is... a questionable choice. But the matching binary names are standard for projects which are compatible replacements for the other project. You're basically releasing something with a different name, but implementing "previous-software-name" interface. This helps with drop-in replacement distro packages to. That's why Ubuntu has the alternatives system. And why mawk / gawk / etc. are often linked to /bin/awk.
  - test_epsilon 5y ago
    The same acronym is underhanded. And it's entirely possible to use different software names for projects that implement a compatible API or service, the claim that it's for compatibility is pretty bogus. It's not "standard", especially not for an adversarial fork. And that's not why the alternatives system exists, the alternatives system exists so differently named packages can implement a particular service (i.e., exactly the opposite, for the equivalent in shell commands). So that's underhanded.
    - viraptor 5y ago
      Alternatives works that way, because conflicting binary names are messy to handle, but at the same time it works that way, because that's the behaviour you normally want in your system. You want "a grep" and "an awk" and many others.
      - test_epsilon 5y ago
        I know how alternatives work, and they are not used to make packages with the same named binaries drop in replacements. They are used to make packages with differently named binaries able to implement standard shell commands. There is no need to match binary names. It doesn't really help with anything.
ww520 5y ago
If they had picked a different name for the forked project, none of the drama would exist. By picking a very similar and the same acronym, the gang is doing something underhanded. In the business world, this is a clear case of trademark infringement and they would be sued out of existence.
- geofft 5y ago
  I have no context here, but from reading the post, it sounds like they did in fact pick a different name, but they picked one that let them reuse the same executable name for API compatibility. In the business world, picking a different name for marketing and using functional elements for compatibility is a good way to get sued but win. See, for instance, Sega v. Accolade - Accolade sold software for the Sega Genesis without Sega's approval. Sega added something to the Genesis game loader which checked for the string "SEGA" and displayed the message "Produced by or under license from Sega Enterprises LTD." Accolade's games caused that message to appear, even though there was no license. The courts ruled that Accolade was entitled to do this, because the point was compatibility.
  - FeepingCreature 5y ago
    Using the same binary name for a daemon is not necessary for compatibility.
- mxmilkiib 5y ago
  As it happens, the first time this came up in #lad I was like "another name is sensible!" ("how about osm? like, One Session Manager!" (that being, at least, British humour)), but, by the second time, I was resigned to the fact that renaming what would be the same (but more robust protocol) to another acronym would be pointlessly confusing to users (and devs). NSM was a hopelessly overloaded term already. It's interesting to see the instance of HN groupthink speculation (and lack of google fu) there has been in this comment section. Folk should come idle/chat in #lad. It's available via Matrix.
  - ww520 5y ago
fundamental 5y ago
For those interested, the linux audio consortium mailing list has archives available at: https://lists.linuxaudio.org/archives/consortium/ https://lists.linuxaudio.org/archives/consortium/ I see mentions of LAD mailing list archives elsewhere in the comments section, but for anyone looking for the public consortium emails they're here.

explorigin 5y ago

(citation needed)

fgonzag 5y ago
He literally stated where you can find the information.
- pantalaimon 5y ago
  Hyperlinks were invented for a reason.
  - quickthrower2 5y ago
    For people at CERN to make bold claims, with citations
- roenxi 5y ago
  He hasn't provided a citation. He's told someone they can do their own research an a mailing list. A parallel might be me claiming that we have a highly algorithm for factoring large primes and saying you can look it up on arxiv.org - I've pointed at a repository of knowledge, but not actually cited why I believe the fact. Providing a citation is pointing at a specific place where the information came from at the smallest granular level. In this case, a citation would be something like links to specific threads.
  - mxmilkiib 5y ago
    Your analogy is way off in terms of scale. Edit: also, I've no obligation to provide a citation, I'm one of those that's bored by this particular drama, folk can go search for posts of they want, I've given enough to go by.
AussieWog93 5y ago
>(citation needed) >The full story is on the archives of the Linux Audio Development and Consortium mailing lists.
- bosswipe 5y ago
  How can you trust the mailing lost when the accused are the heavy-handed moderators of that list?

test_epsilon 5y ago

It is one sided, by definition. However creating a fork with the same acronym and name for the daemon or binaries or whatever seems pretty under-handed. Was a release announcement for the original software moderated, on a list where release announcements had been posted without moderation before the fork? Was the author banned from lists?

viraptor 5y ago
The same acronym is... a questionable choice. But the matching binary names are standard for projects which are compatible replacements for the other project. You're basically releasing something with a different name, but implementing "previous-software-name" interface. This helps with drop-in replacement distro packages to. That's why Ubuntu has the alternatives system. And why mawk / gawk / etc. are often linked to /bin/awk.
- test_epsilon 5y ago
  The same acronym is underhanded. And it's entirely possible to use different software names for projects that implement a compatible API or service, the claim that it's for compatibility is pretty bogus. It's not "standard", especially not for an adversarial fork. And that's not why the alternatives system exists, the alternatives system exists so differently named packages can implement a particular service (i.e., exactly the opposite, for the equivalent in shell commands). So that's underhanded.
  - viraptor 5y ago
    Alternatives works that way, because conflicting binary names are messy to handle, but at the same time it works that way, because that's the behaviour you normally want in your system. You want "a grep" and "an awk" and many others.
    - test_epsilon 5y ago
      I know how alternatives work, and they are not used to make packages with the same named binaries drop in replacements. They are used to make packages with differently named binaries able to implement standard shell commands. There is no need to match binary names. It doesn't really help with anything.

ww520 5y ago

If they had picked a different name for the forked project, none of the drama would exist. By picking a very similar and the same acronym, the gang is doing something underhanded. In the business world, this is a clear case of trademark infringement and they would be sued out of existence.

geofft 5y ago
I have no context here, but from reading the post, it sounds like they did in fact pick a different name, but they picked one that let them reuse the same executable name for API compatibility. In the business world, picking a different name for marketing and using functional elements for compatibility is a good way to get sued but win. See, for instance, Sega v. Accolade - Accolade sold software for the Sega Genesis without Sega's approval. Sega added something to the Genesis game loader which checked for the string "SEGA" and displayed the message "Produced by or under license from Sega Enterprises LTD." Accolade's games caused that message to appear, even though there was no license. The courts ruled that Accolade was entitled to do this, because the point was compatibility.
- FeepingCreature 5y ago
  Using the same binary name for a daemon is not necessary for compatibility.
mxmilkiib 5y ago
As it happens, the first time this came up in #lad I was like "another name is sensible!" ("how about osm? like, One Session Manager!" (that being, at least, British humour)), but, by the second time, I was resigned to the fact that renaming what would be the same (but more robust protocol) to another acronym would be pointlessly confusing to users (and devs). NSM was a hopelessly overloaded term already. It's interesting to see the instance of HN groupthink speculation (and lack of google fu) there has been in this comment section. Folk should come idle/chat in #lad. It's available via Matrix.
- ww520 5y ago

fundamental 5y ago

For those interested, the linux audio consortium mailing list has archives available at: https://lists.linuxaudio.org/archives/consortium/ https://lists.linuxaudio.org/archives/consortium/ I see mentions of LAD mailing list archives elsewhere in the comments section, but for anyone looking for the public consortium emails they're here.