4 ms·

> Eh, it's no longer allowed to voice discontent in public once Linus has spoken? What a bizarre thing to say. I'm sorry you misunderstood me, because I said n

> Eh, it's no longer allowed to voice discontent in public once Linus has spoken? What a bizarre thing to say. I'm sorry you misunderstood me, because I said nothing about simply voicing one's discontent. I guess it needs to be stated explicitly: Everyone, including Ted T'so, please feel free to voice your discontent. My argument was only: When you do voice your discontent, please direct it to the right/responsible person (Linus) and not someone else. Or if it's easier for you: Don't shoot the messenger. Which I thought was clear when I said: >> The person to whom he should address his complaints is the decider, the BDFL, Linus Torvalds, not anyone else. > You come out here with some pretty big accusations based on basically nothing other than "he strongly disagrees". I'm sorry, but recall you said: >>> 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. I only agreed with you about what I thought we both believed the problem to be: Ted, like some others, is frustrated by Rust being included in Linux, and is venting his frustration at the Rust for Linux maintainer, not Linus. > 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. To be very clear -- I didn't say these were examples of Ted's behavior, although I do think they are examples of bad behavior that have been directed at the Rust for Linux project. I thought was I clear in all my comments about what I believe the problem was re: Ted's behavior. I said Ted not taking his concerns directly to project leadership (Linus), and instead directing his ire at Wedson, was passive aggressive. > It's not okay to guess at his motivations, dismiss his views outright, and things like that. One is (hopefully constructive) criticism. Again -- I'm befuddled -- because I was responding to your own statement of the situation, quoted herein. If you read things differently now, 3 hours later, or you regret making that comment, because it was the first to guess at Ted's motivations, I'm fine to leave it here, but please refer to your own comment, before you start preaching to anyone else about good manners.

arp242 2y ago
> When you do voice your discontent, please direct it to the right/responsible person (Linus) He is not "the right person". The disagreement was on how to best integrate Rust in the filesystem code. That's up to the filesystem people. The great success from Linux comes from Linus not doing that kind of micromanagement. This is not how kernel dev works or has ever worked. If "assume good faith and don't dismiss arguments as bad faith" is guessing at people's motivations then I guess I am shrug.
- mustache_kimono 2y ago
  > He is not "the right person". The disagreement was on how to best integrate Rust in the filesystem code. Linus is absolutely the right person because the subject for discussion was the inclusion of Rust for Linux in the kernel. Despite this being very clear, you're now trying to conflate the "Filesystems in Rust" discussion with what you were referring to the broader Rust for Linux question. I mean -- you're pretty slippery, but I can certainly remind you again of what you wrote: >>>>> 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. Now, I'm sure you remember what was being discussed "way back when"? Yes, it was the argument re: inclusion of Rust for Linux in the kernel, not the "Filesystems in Rust" discussion. > If "assume good faith and don't dismiss arguments as bad faith" is guessing at people's motivations then I guess I am shrug. I completely agree this is ordinarily the right way to act, but there are limits to what we can accept in good faith. When someone acts as passive aggressively as Ted T'so has, or as slippery and dishonest as you have here, even if it's embarrassing to me to have to point such things out, I think it's right to say "Wow maybe someone needs to have a talk with Ted or arp242". Despite your (bad) behavior, I still want someone to be honest and direct with you.
  - arp242 2y ago
    I don't know why you're so aggressive or insulting over a simple "let's assume good faith". I do know these sort of personal attacks you keep doing are explicitly disallowed on HN. So please just stop.

arp242 2y ago

> When you do voice your discontent, please direct it to the right/responsible person (Linus) He is not "the right person". The disagreement was on how to best integrate Rust in the filesystem code. That's up to the filesystem people. The great success from Linux comes from Linus not doing that kind of micromanagement. This is not how kernel dev works or has ever worked. If "assume good faith and don't dismiss arguments as bad faith" is guessing at people's motivations then I guess I am shrug.

mustache_kimono 2y ago
> He is not "the right person". The disagreement was on how to best integrate Rust in the filesystem code. Linus is absolutely the right person because the subject for discussion was the inclusion of Rust for Linux in the kernel. Despite this being very clear, you're now trying to conflate the "Filesystems in Rust" discussion with what you were referring to the broader Rust for Linux question. I mean -- you're pretty slippery, but I can certainly remind you again of what you wrote: >>>>> 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. Now, I'm sure you remember what was being discussed "way back when"? Yes, it was the argument re: inclusion of Rust for Linux in the kernel, not the "Filesystems in Rust" discussion. > If "assume good faith and don't dismiss arguments as bad faith" is guessing at people's motivations then I guess I am shrug. I completely agree this is ordinarily the right way to act, but there are limits to what we can accept in good faith. When someone acts as passive aggressively as Ted T'so has, or as slippery and dishonest as you have here, even if it's embarrassing to me to have to point such things out, I think it's right to say "Wow maybe someone needs to have a talk with Ted or arp242". Despite your (bad) behavior, I still want someone to be honest and direct with you.
- arp242 2y ago
  I don't know why you're so aggressive or insulting over a simple "let's assume good faith". I do know these sort of personal attacks you keep doing are explicitly disallowed on HN. So please just stop.