3 ms·

> (which is contrary to the usual development workflow of the kernel, hence the concern over what happens if major distros start depending on Rust code) The is

> (which is contrary to the usual development workflow of the kernel, hence the concern over what happens if major distros start depending on Rust code) The issue here is that this wasn't decided in this moment: it was decided as soon as the Rust was approved to merge. You're right that it's a concern, which is why it was addressed back then, and so a few years later, bringing it up feels like an argument in bad faith rather than a genuine attempt to bring a concern to the table.

arp242 2y ago
Just because it was discussed way back when doesn't mean everyone has to accept the resolution from that. People obviously think it wasn't addressed in a good way. There's a lot that you can say about all of that, but calling it "bad faith" is not great, to put it mildly. I had seen the video before, but didn't realize the person speaking is Ted Ts'o (I'm sad case and don't recognize Linux developers by voice alone). Ted has spent about 30 years working on all of this stuff, including investing a great deal of his spare time on it. He isn't some sort of random internet troll or anonymous HN user. Dismissing his views as "bad faith" does not leave me impressed.
- steveklabnik 2y ago
  I don't see how anyone but Linus could sign off on changing something as large as "Rust code is now required to build the kernel." I'm also not aware of anyone suggesting that should change. I know who Ted is as well. That's why I expect better behavior. Then again, I'm not involved in any way, so my opinions don't really matter.
  - arp242 2y ago
    "He could have done better" is a very different thing to say than "it feels like a bad faith argument instead of a genuine concern". People are people and people can often "do better" in many ways on account of being people. That doesn't mean they're acting in bad faith.
- mustache_kimono 2y ago
  > Just because it was discussed way back when doesn't mean everyone has to accept the resolution from that. People obviously think it wasn't addressed in a good way. That's precisely it, and why we also usually call behavior like Ted's "passive aggressive", and why Steve is right to call it out as seemingly made in bad faith. The person to whom he should address his complaints is the decider, the BDFL, Linus Torvalds, not anyone else. Snipping, delay tactics, bureaucratic maneuvering, and endless bike shedding can poison projects. If you think Rust in the kernel is a mistake (not -- you think, in good faith, this implementation detail or that is technically incorrect), you need to plainly express that view to the person who makes the decisions, instead of whining to and about the people doing good work, endorsed by project leadership. It's fine to be on record that "this thing will never work". It's less fine to work non-constructively to kill something before it gets an opportunity to work.
  - arp242 2y ago
    Eh, it's no longer allowed to voice discontent in public once Linus has spoken? What a bizarre thing to say. This is never how kernel dev worked, or indeed, how most projects work. Linus is not and has never been a "I have decided, now everyone heed my edict"-type of BFDL. A long-term contributor with a great deal of investment in the project phrased things in the moment in a way that perhaps wasn't too brilliant (he was clearly emotional/nervous/whatever, as can be heard from his voice), and now he's somehow a bad faith actor trying to poison the project? Again just completely bizarre. You come out here with some pretty big accusations based on basically nothing other than "he strongly disagrees". Well, he, ehm, he is allowed to state those views. If you want to radically change how kernel dev works and expect people who have been working on this for 3 decodes to just nod and smile and voice disagreement only in the Approved Way™, then I think you will end up bitterly disappointed. That's not how it works anywhere. You need to actually convince people. And yes, sometimes people will phrase things in a suboptimal way, but that doesn't mean they're acting in bad faith. Bizarre thing to claim with such aggression and force. > Snipping, delay tactics, bureaucratic maneuvering, and endless bike shedding can poison projects. So do your baseless accusations that border on character assassinations, or dismissing people's concerns as "bike shedding" that they're somehow no longer allowed to bring up. If you want to hold people to high standards of kind, empathic, and careful communication, then start by employing those standards yourself. That is: it's okay to criticise Ted for how he handled things. It's not okay to guess at his motivations, dismiss his views outright, and things like that. One is (hopefully constructive) criticism. The other is a personal attack and exactly the sort of thing that toxifies these discussions.

arp242 2y ago

Just because it was discussed way back when doesn't mean everyone has to accept the resolution from that. People obviously think it wasn't addressed in a good way. There's a lot that you can say about all of that, but calling it "bad faith" is not great, to put it mildly. I had seen the video before, but didn't realize the person speaking is Ted Ts'o (I'm sad case and don't recognize Linux developers by voice alone). Ted has spent about 30 years working on all of this stuff, including investing a great deal of his spare time on it. He isn't some sort of random internet troll or anonymous HN user. Dismissing his views as "bad faith" does not leave me impressed.

steveklabnik 2y ago
I don't see how anyone but Linus could sign off on changing something as large as "Rust code is now required to build the kernel." I'm also not aware of anyone suggesting that should change. I know who Ted is as well. That's why I expect better behavior. Then again, I'm not involved in any way, so my opinions don't really matter.
- arp242 2y ago
  "He could have done better" is a very different thing to say than "it feels like a bad faith argument instead of a genuine concern". People are people and people can often "do better" in many ways on account of being people. That doesn't mean they're acting in bad faith.
mustache_kimono 2y ago
> Just because it was discussed way back when doesn't mean everyone has to accept the resolution from that. People obviously think it wasn't addressed in a good way. That's precisely it, and why we also usually call behavior like Ted's "passive aggressive", and why Steve is right to call it out as seemingly made in bad faith. The person to whom he should address his complaints is the decider, the BDFL, Linus Torvalds, not anyone else. Snipping, delay tactics, bureaucratic maneuvering, and endless bike shedding can poison projects. If you think Rust in the kernel is a mistake (not -- you think, in good faith, this implementation detail or that is technically incorrect), you need to plainly express that view to the person who makes the decisions, instead of whining to and about the people doing good work, endorsed by project leadership. It's fine to be on record that "this thing will never work". It's less fine to work non-constructively to kill something before it gets an opportunity to work.
- arp242 2y ago
  Eh, it's no longer allowed to voice discontent in public once Linus has spoken? What a bizarre thing to say. This is never how kernel dev worked, or indeed, how most projects work. Linus is not and has never been a "I have decided, now everyone heed my edict"-type of BFDL. A long-term contributor with a great deal of investment in the project phrased things in the moment in a way that perhaps wasn't too brilliant (he was clearly emotional/nervous/whatever, as can be heard from his voice), and now he's somehow a bad faith actor trying to poison the project? Again just completely bizarre. You come out here with some pretty big accusations based on basically nothing other than "he strongly disagrees". Well, he, ehm, he is allowed to state those views. If you want to radically change how kernel dev works and expect people who have been working on this for 3 decodes to just nod and smile and voice disagreement only in the Approved Way™, then I think you will end up bitterly disappointed. That's not how it works anywhere. You need to actually convince people. And yes, sometimes people will phrase things in a suboptimal way, but that doesn't mean they're acting in bad faith. Bizarre thing to claim with such aggression and force. > Snipping, delay tactics, bureaucratic maneuvering, and endless bike shedding can poison projects. So do your baseless accusations that border on character assassinations, or dismissing people's concerns as "bike shedding" that they're somehow no longer allowed to bring up. If you want to hold people to high standards of kind, empathic, and careful communication, then start by employing those standards yourself. That is: it's okay to criticise Ted for how he handled things. It's not okay to guess at his motivations, dismiss his views outright, and things like that. One is (hopefully constructive) criticism. The other is a personal attack and exactly the sort of thing that toxifies these discussions.