5 ms·

I'm tired of anaphoras. And he's not just abrasive He's a troublemaker. Seriously, code of conduct violation? It was perfectly clear what Hellwig meant by "ca

I'm tired of anaphoras. And he's not just abrasive He's a troublemaker. Seriously, code of conduct violation? It was perfectly clear what Hellwig meant by "cancer".

Ygg2 2y ago
Even if you put that aside, the problem is you offer Hellwig two solutions and he NACKs them both. H: I don't want to support multilanguage codebase R: We'll have a maintainer verify R4L is behaving properly. H: I solved issues because they were unified. R: Rust will be mirror of whatever C is, and you're free to break it, R4L will maintain it. H: No.
- DSMan195276 2y ago
  I'll bite and play devils advocate here - both of those are not a solution to his problem. Ultimately he's the maintainer and he gets the emails if X driver is broken, so because of that he doesn't want to rely on another group to maintain the 'Rust half' of his part of the code. It's also a system that works until it doesn't, the biggest rule of the kernel is no breaking userspace - at some point in the future it won't matter if it's his C changes breaking the Rust drivers, it's still his changes that have to be rolled back if the Rust code isn't updated. And to clarify I'm not saying he's right or wrong or acting good or bad. I have however expected R4L to ultimately fall apart because of this exact issue, the maintainers have never been on board with maintaining Rust code and that hasn't changed. While that remains the case the project is going to be stuck at a wall - to the point that if they're confident they can maintain the Rust code themselves they should just fork it and do that. If it works well enough they'll eventually be too popular to ignore with people choosing to write their new modules in Rust instead.
  - dralley 2y ago
    That is not a problem. Christoph does not have the right to gatekeep who can use DMA. If he tried to veto an Nvidia graphics driver from using DMA using the excuse that "it might create more work for me", everyone would rightfully tell him to f-off, because that's not his call.
    - tw1984 2y ago
      [flagged]
  - tw1984 2y ago
    [flagged]
Philpax 2y ago
What is the interpretation of "cancer" in this context that isn't rude, offensive, or hostile to the R4L project?
- dearing 2y ago
  Mixing codebases in the Linux core. I think the conversation is more about people equating R4L as validation for rust or even themselves.
  - dralley 2y ago
    That is not what is happening! Nobody is mixing languages in the Linux core...
- arp242 2y ago
  He meant to say "the Rust code will spread everywhere [like cancer]". I agree it's rude, offensive, and hostile, but there are degrees of things and context matters. "You are cancer" would be much worse. I feel we should try and interpret things in good faith and maintain some perspective. For a single word like this: you can just read over it (which is also what the other Rust people did). Certainly outright removing Hellwig from the Linux project, as Marcan suggested, is bizarrely draconian. As I argued a few days ago: part of "being nice" is accepting that people aren't perfect and dealing with that – https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42940591 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42940591
- tacker2000 2y ago
  He wasnt talking about Rust specifically, he was referring to codebases in any other language. He said: “ And I also do not want another maintainer. If you want to make Linux impossible to maintain due to a cross-language codebase do that in your driver so that you have to do it instead of spreading this cancer to core subsystems. (where this cancer explicitly is a cross-language codebase and not rust itself, just to escape the flameware brigade).”
Vegenoid 2y ago
In my opinion, calling the well-intentioned hard work of others "cancer" is undeniably hyperbolic and dismissive. It is clear that Hellwig used it in this way. To interpret it differently requires bending the mind. Most people would also consider it rude, but I'll grant that rudeness is more subjective. There is an argument that being hyperbolic, dismissive, and maybe a bit rude isn't as bad as some people make it out to be, and that it is a fine way to hash out disagreements and arrive at the best solution - that it is simply a result of the passion of exceptional engineers. There has historically been much of it in kernel development. But it seems that as the background and culture of kernel maintainers has broadened, that a more measured and positive approach to communication is more constructive. It doesn't seem like marcan exemplifies this very well either. It is a loss for someone so skilled to abandon collaboration on the kernel, and seems like the unfortunate result of someone being dismissive and rude, and someone else taking that harder than is warranted or healthy.
- tssva 2y ago
  "To interpret it differently requires bending the mind." Stange, I think interpreting it your way requires bending the mind. Hellwig clearly used it to describe what he sees at the ill effects of multiple languages in the kernel. It was not used to describe either Rust the language or this specifically this particular submission.
  - markchuk 2y ago
    I agree with Vegenoid that using diseases for labeling poorly written code is at the very least highly unprofessional. This practice not only diminishes the seriousness of illnesses like cancer when used so casually, but it also cannot provide helpful constructive feedback. Instead of providing helpful advice like outlining the current situation and suggesting specific improvements (action A, task B, and goal C) to reach the goal, it feels rude and offensive.
    - Brian_K_White 2y ago
      There is no specific improvement if the problem is fundamental. There is no "better/right" way to spread a cancer. (I'm not saying it is, just that that is the argument, and in that context, there is no such thing as a common goal to reach some better way. Everyone does not actually have to agree that all goals are valid and should be reached.) The only helpful advice, which they did give, is don't even start doing this because it's fundamentally wrong. The linux kernel is like a house where everyone is a vegan. Marcan believes that incorporating some meat in the diet is important, and better that being a vegan. He may even be right. But so what? He makes his pitch, the family says that's nice but no thanks. He then demands that they eat this chicken because he wants to live in the house and wants to eat chicken while living in the vegan house? I don't see how he has any right to what he wants, and I don't see an existing kernel devs refusal to cooperate, or even entertain cooperating, as automatically wrong or unreasonable.
exDM69 2y ago
> It was perfectly clear what Hellwig meant by "cancer". No, it is not perfectly clear. The generous interpretation is that they meant it is "viral", spreading through dependencies across the codebase (which I don't think is technically accurate as long as CONFIG_RUST=n exists). The less generous way to interpret it is "harmful". The later messages in the thread suggests that this is more likely. But I'm left guessing here, and I'm willing to give some some benefit of doubt here. That said, the response to this comment was incredibly bad as well.

I'm tired of anaphoras. And he's not just abrasive He's a troublemaker. Seriously, code of conduct violation? It was perfectly clear what Hellwig meant by "cancer".

Ygg2 2y ago

Even if you put that aside, the problem is you offer Hellwig two solutions and he NACKs them both. H: I don't want to support multilanguage codebase R: We'll have a maintainer verify R4L is behaving properly. H: I solved issues because they were unified. R: Rust will be mirror of whatever C is, and you're free to break it, R4L will maintain it. H: No.

DSMan195276 2y ago
I'll bite and play devils advocate here - both of those are not a solution to his problem. Ultimately he's the maintainer and he gets the emails if X driver is broken, so because of that he doesn't want to rely on another group to maintain the 'Rust half' of his part of the code. It's also a system that works until it doesn't, the biggest rule of the kernel is no breaking userspace - at some point in the future it won't matter if it's his C changes breaking the Rust drivers, it's still his changes that have to be rolled back if the Rust code isn't updated. And to clarify I'm not saying he's right or wrong or acting good or bad. I have however expected R4L to ultimately fall apart because of this exact issue, the maintainers have never been on board with maintaining Rust code and that hasn't changed. While that remains the case the project is going to be stuck at a wall - to the point that if they're confident they can maintain the Rust code themselves they should just fork it and do that. If it works well enough they'll eventually be too popular to ignore with people choosing to write their new modules in Rust instead.
- dralley 2y ago
  That is not a problem. Christoph does not have the right to gatekeep who can use DMA. If he tried to veto an Nvidia graphics driver from using DMA using the excuse that "it might create more work for me", everyone would rightfully tell him to f-off, because that's not his call.
  - tw1984 2y ago
    [flagged]
- tw1984 2y ago
  [flagged]

Philpax 2y ago

What is the interpretation of "cancer" in this context that isn't rude, offensive, or hostile to the R4L project?

dearing 2y ago
Mixing codebases in the Linux core. I think the conversation is more about people equating R4L as validation for rust or even themselves.
- dralley 2y ago
  That is not what is happening! Nobody is mixing languages in the Linux core...
arp242 2y ago
He meant to say "the Rust code will spread everywhere [like cancer]". I agree it's rude, offensive, and hostile, but there are degrees of things and context matters. "You are cancer" would be much worse. I feel we should try and interpret things in good faith and maintain some perspective. For a single word like this: you can just read over it (which is also what the other Rust people did). Certainly outright removing Hellwig from the Linux project, as Marcan suggested, is bizarrely draconian. As I argued a few days ago: part of "being nice" is accepting that people aren't perfect and dealing with that – https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42940591 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42940591
tacker2000 2y ago
He wasnt talking about Rust specifically, he was referring to codebases in any other language. He said: “ And I also do not want another maintainer. If you want to make Linux impossible to maintain due to a cross-language codebase do that in your driver so that you have to do it instead of spreading this cancer to core subsystems. (where this cancer explicitly is a cross-language codebase and not rust itself, just to escape the flameware brigade).”

Vegenoid 2y ago

In my opinion, calling the well-intentioned hard work of others "cancer" is undeniably hyperbolic and dismissive. It is clear that Hellwig used it in this way. To interpret it differently requires bending the mind. Most people would also consider it rude, but I'll grant that rudeness is more subjective. There is an argument that being hyperbolic, dismissive, and maybe a bit rude isn't as bad as some people make it out to be, and that it is a fine way to hash out disagreements and arrive at the best solution - that it is simply a result of the passion of exceptional engineers. There has historically been much of it in kernel development. But it seems that as the background and culture of kernel maintainers has broadened, that a more measured and positive approach to communication is more constructive. It doesn't seem like marcan exemplifies this very well either. It is a loss for someone so skilled to abandon collaboration on the kernel, and seems like the unfortunate result of someone being dismissive and rude, and someone else taking that harder than is warranted or healthy.

tssva 2y ago
"To interpret it differently requires bending the mind." Stange, I think interpreting it your way requires bending the mind. Hellwig clearly used it to describe what he sees at the ill effects of multiple languages in the kernel. It was not used to describe either Rust the language or this specifically this particular submission.
- markchuk 2y ago
  I agree with Vegenoid that using diseases for labeling poorly written code is at the very least highly unprofessional. This practice not only diminishes the seriousness of illnesses like cancer when used so casually, but it also cannot provide helpful constructive feedback. Instead of providing helpful advice like outlining the current situation and suggesting specific improvements (action A, task B, and goal C) to reach the goal, it feels rude and offensive.
  - Brian_K_White 2y ago
    There is no specific improvement if the problem is fundamental. There is no "better/right" way to spread a cancer. (I'm not saying it is, just that that is the argument, and in that context, there is no such thing as a common goal to reach some better way. Everyone does not actually have to agree that all goals are valid and should be reached.) The only helpful advice, which they did give, is don't even start doing this because it's fundamentally wrong. The linux kernel is like a house where everyone is a vegan. Marcan believes that incorporating some meat in the diet is important, and better that being a vegan. He may even be right. But so what? He makes his pitch, the family says that's nice but no thanks. He then demands that they eat this chicken because he wants to live in the house and wants to eat chicken while living in the vegan house? I don't see how he has any right to what he wants, and I don't see an existing kernel devs refusal to cooperate, or even entertain cooperating, as automatically wrong or unreasonable.

exDM69 2y ago

> It was perfectly clear what Hellwig meant by "cancer". No, it is not perfectly clear. The generous interpretation is that they meant it is "viral", spreading through dependencies across the codebase (which I don't think is technically accurate as long as CONFIG_RUST=n exists). The less generous way to interpret it is "harmful". The later messages in the thread suggests that this is more likely. But I'm left guessing here, and I'm willing to give some some benefit of doubt here. That said, the response to this comment was incredibly bad as well.