4 ms·

You cant use “hubris” as a pejorative and go on to claim that Linus is the good guy. There’s clearly hubris on both sides, and only one of the sides made a big

You cant use “hubris” as a pejorative and go on to claim that Linus is the good guy. There’s clearly hubris on both sides, and only one of the sides made a big deal about it. Developers change things for parsers all the time. That’s, like, coding.

Brian_K_White 3y ago
Incorrect. It's only hubris on one side. It's both Linus's plain arbitrary right, and his plain job, his defined role and office, to make exactly such decisions for this project. That's not hubris. It's just a role that affects a lot of people. What makes it hubris on one side is "Who do you think you are making such a change to the Linux kernel that everyone else will have to accept?" The reason things like that are phrased as questions is to allow for the possibility that there might be an answer. For one of these parties, the question is rhetorical. For one of these parties, the question is not rhetorical.
- halJordan 3y ago
  You're misunderstanding the statement (probably because of hubris). Linus has a long tail of hubris-informed acts that have been blessed off, accepted, and rationalized. No one is saying this particular rejection is one of those: Just that if it's ok for Linus to be full of hubris (and it incontrovertibly is) and then it cant be a criticism of this guy either.
  - ikekkdcjkfke 3y ago
    Hubris implies over-confidence, this dude has the skills and knowledge
  - Brian_K_White 3y ago
    Hubris is overreaching. Linus is not overreaching. His reach actually is farther than yours or mine, and this act and most others are not hubris. It's not even being full of himself.
rickdeckard 3y ago
It's hubris to think that the issue with a parser to identify whitespaces properly is warranting to change code in the KERNEL of arguably the most widespread operating system in the world. And THEN not even providing more justification for this in the description. I'm not claiming anywhere that Linus is the good guy. Or bad guy. In this case I agree with his stance that whatever this parser is, it should better fail harder in order to get it fixed. And if you know how he reacts when he's making a big deal of something, you know that this one isn't one of those times...

Brian_K_White 3y ago

Incorrect. It's only hubris on one side. It's both Linus's plain arbitrary right, and his plain job, his defined role and office, to make exactly such decisions for this project. That's not hubris. It's just a role that affects a lot of people. What makes it hubris on one side is "Who do you think you are making such a change to the Linux kernel that everyone else will have to accept?" The reason things like that are phrased as questions is to allow for the possibility that there might be an answer. For one of these parties, the question is rhetorical. For one of these parties, the question is not rhetorical.

halJordan 3y ago
You're misunderstanding the statement (probably because of hubris). Linus has a long tail of hubris-informed acts that have been blessed off, accepted, and rationalized. No one is saying this particular rejection is one of those: Just that if it's ok for Linus to be full of hubris (and it incontrovertibly is) and then it cant be a criticism of this guy either.
- ikekkdcjkfke 3y ago
  Hubris implies over-confidence, this dude has the skills and knowledge
- Brian_K_White 3y ago
  Hubris is overreaching. Linus is not overreaching. His reach actually is farther than yours or mine, and this act and most others are not hubris. It's not even being full of himself.

rickdeckard 3y ago

It's hubris to think that the issue with a parser to identify whitespaces properly is warranting to change code in the KERNEL of arguably the most widespread operating system in the world. And THEN not even providing more justification for this in the description. I'm not claiming anywhere that Linus is the good guy. Or bad guy. In this case I agree with his stance that whatever this parser is, it should better fail harder in order to get it fixed. And if you know how he reacts when he's making a big deal of something, you know that this one isn't one of those times...