3 ms·

Who was the angry guy who was shouting ?

by thecleaner 2y ago

SirGiggles 2y ago
Unless I'm mistaken, LWN suggests it's Ted Ts'o https://lwn.net/Articles/978738/ https://lwn.net/Articles/978738/
- rwmj 2y ago
  Ted's objection is perfectly reasonable, and the way that Linux works and has always worked internally. If an internal (not userspace) API changes then code that uses that API has to be fixed. He also quite reasonably says that it'll take time to understand the trade-offs of encoding constraints into the type system.
  - mlindner 2y ago
    Bringing out silly and absurd strawmen attacks like "you're trying to convince everyone to switch over to the religion as promulgated by Rust" is anything but "perfectly reasonable".
    - binary132 2y ago
      maybe. but is it really FALSE? anyway, the point of the resignation is not wanting to deal with all this, not necessarily taking a side, so I’m not even disagreeing with you. But obviously, it is a disagreeable atmosphere. I don’t find that debatable, even if that’s due to people feeling paranoid about a (nonexistent?) rust religious takeover. I think we can all admit Rust definitely has its ideologues and cult acolytes.
      - entropicdrifter 2y ago
        Yes, it's really false. They weren't saying that maintainers couldn't change the API nor that the maintainers who changed the API had to update the Rust part, just that they needed to tell the Rust maintainers what they did and what they intended so that they could correctly encode their underlying assumptions in code. In other words, they simply requested adequate documentation and the response was "I'M NOT LEARNING RUST AND YOU CAN'T MAKE ME", effectively. That is nontechnical nonsense
        MiguelX413 2y ago
        The religion known as C-ism is sabotaging Linux.
        an_guy 2y ago
        > They weren't saying that maintainers couldn't change the API nor that the maintainers who changed the API had to update the Rust part So maintainer would have to either wait for Rust team to update their API or learn Rust. Seems like an unnecessary dependency.
        sunshowers 2y ago
        Yes, the burden on the C maintainers is low but not zero. In a shared project, other people matter too. If you don't like it you should just work on solo projects.
  - raggi 2y ago
    Not really, as the only point he made wasn't under discussion or in conflict at all. The bulk of the words he said were intended to deliver other messages. I took the time to explain it in some detail here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41396677 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41396677
  - sunshowers 2y ago
    It's deeply ineffective engineering communication. Below a professional standard.

Who was the angry guy who was shouting ?

SirGiggles 2y ago

Unless I'm mistaken, LWN suggests it's Ted Ts'o https://lwn.net/Articles/978738/ https://lwn.net/Articles/978738/

rwmj 2y ago
Ted's objection is perfectly reasonable, and the way that Linux works and has always worked internally. If an internal (not userspace) API changes then code that uses that API has to be fixed. He also quite reasonably says that it'll take time to understand the trade-offs of encoding constraints into the type system.
- mlindner 2y ago
  Bringing out silly and absurd strawmen attacks like "you're trying to convince everyone to switch over to the religion as promulgated by Rust" is anything but "perfectly reasonable".
  - binary132 2y ago
    maybe. but is it really FALSE? anyway, the point of the resignation is not wanting to deal with all this, not necessarily taking a side, so I’m not even disagreeing with you. But obviously, it is a disagreeable atmosphere. I don’t find that debatable, even if that’s due to people feeling paranoid about a (nonexistent?) rust religious takeover. I think we can all admit Rust definitely has its ideologues and cult acolytes.
    - entropicdrifter 2y ago
      Yes, it's really false. They weren't saying that maintainers couldn't change the API nor that the maintainers who changed the API had to update the Rust part, just that they needed to tell the Rust maintainers what they did and what they intended so that they could correctly encode their underlying assumptions in code. In other words, they simply requested adequate documentation and the response was "I'M NOT LEARNING RUST AND YOU CAN'T MAKE ME", effectively. That is nontechnical nonsense
      - MiguelX413 2y ago
        The religion known as C-ism is sabotaging Linux.
      - an_guy 2y ago
        > They weren't saying that maintainers couldn't change the API nor that the maintainers who changed the API had to update the Rust part So maintainer would have to either wait for Rust team to update their API or learn Rust. Seems like an unnecessary dependency.
        sunshowers 2y ago
        Yes, the burden on the C maintainers is low but not zero. In a shared project, other people matter too. If you don't like it you should just work on solo projects.
- raggi 2y ago
  Not really, as the only point he made wasn't under discussion or in conflict at all. The bulk of the words he said were intended to deliver other messages. I took the time to explain it in some detail here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41396677 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41396677
- sunshowers 2y ago
  It's deeply ineffective engineering communication. Below a professional standard.