5 ms·

Is it just me or does Kent seem self-destructively glued to his own idea of how kernel development should work? I don’t doubt that people on all sides have mad

by sevg 1y ago

Is it just me or does Kent seem self-destructively glued to his own idea of how kernel development should work? I don’t doubt that people on all sides have made mis-steps, but from the outside it mostly just seems like Kent doesn’t want to play by the rules (despite having been given years of patience).

toast0 1y ago
It's not just kernel development. In the lwn thread, he mentioned and then demonstrated difficulty working with Debian developers as well. IMHO, what his communications show is an unwillingness to acknowledge that other projects that include his work have focus, priorities, and policies that are not the same as that of his project. Also, expecting exceptions to be made for his case, since exceptions have been made in other cases. Again IMHO, I think he would be better off developing apart with an announcement mailing list. When urgent changes are made, send to the announcement list. Let other interested parties sort out the process of getting those changes into the kernel and distributions. If people come with bug reports from old versions distributed by others, let them know how to get the most up to date version from his repository, and maybe gently poke the distributors. Yes, that means users will have older versions and not get fixes immediately. But what he's doing isn't working to get fixes to users immediately either.
ajb 1y ago
I think Kent is in the wrong here, but it really doesn't help that the kernel people from Linus on down are seemingly unable to explain the problem, and instead resort to playground insults. Apart from being unprofessional and making for a hostile work environment, it doesn't really communicate why Kent's actions are problematic, so I've some sympathy for his not believing that they are.
- sevg 1y ago
  > it doesn't really communicate why Kent's actions are problematic I agree that the kernel community can be a hostile environment. Though I’d argue that people _have_ tried to explain things to Kent, multiple times. At least a few have been calm, respectful attempts. Sadly, Kent responds to everything in an email except the key part that is being pointed out to him (usually his behavior). Or deflects by going on the attack. And generally refuses to apologise.
  - ajb 1y ago
    Definitely not saying that the problems are all on one side here. Agreed that going on the attack was bad (as well as dumb). I just think that while, yes, the kernel folks have tried to explain, they didn't explain well. The "why" of it is a people thing. Linus needs to be able to trust that people he's delegated some authority will respect its limits. The maintainers need to be able to trust that each other maintainer will respect the area that they have been delegated authority over. I think that Kent genuinely doesn't get this.
  - philipallstar 1y ago
    > Sadly, Kent responds to everything in an email except the key part that is being pointed out to him (usually his behavior). Behaviour sounds like the least important part of code contributions. I smell overpowered, should've-been-a-kindergarten-teacher code of conduct person overreach.
    - dralley 1y ago
      No. As someone who likes bcachefs and even literally donates to Kent's patreon, the way he has gone about engaging with the kernel community is not productive. Unfortunately. CoC isn't even the issue, he constantly breaks kernel development rules relating to the actual code, then starts arguments with everyone up to and including Linus when he gets called out, and aggressively misses the point every time. Then starts the same argument all over again 6 weeks later. And, like, if you don't like some rules, then you can have that discussion, but submitting patches you know will be rejected and then re-litigating your dislike of the rules is a waste of everyone's time.
      - philipallstar 1y ago
        I think it is partly about code of conduct issues[0]. I totally agree that Linus can run whatever release process he likes, and Overbeck should get in line with that. However all of the accompanying sighing at how many times we've had to explain things to him from others is not okay. So what if more discussion is needed or wanted? People doing difficult work might have strong opinions. People doing easy work (e.g. sending code of conduct emails) should not have an equal weight to their opinions, if any at all. [0] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/6740fc3aabec0_5eb129497@dwillia2-xfh.jf.intel.com.notmuch https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/6740fc3aabec0_5eb129497@dwillia...
- yxhuvud 1y ago
  I've seen plenty of times where the problems has been explained to Kent. But he just don't give a shit about the problems of people that isn't himself or that doesn't use his file system experiences.
  - bombcar 1y ago
    It seems very clear to me that it's almost always a "you can't argue canon law with the Pope" situation - the rules say no new features, and it doesn't matter what the definition of "feature" is if the definition AND the rule come from the same person, Linus. You can't win a rules-lawyer argument with the rulemaker.
- arp242 1y ago
  People have explaining things, at great length, many times. Many of these have been posted to HN before, either as submissions or comments. Kent just does not listen. Every time the discussion starts from the top. Even if you do agree on some compromise, in a month or two he'll just do the same thing again and all the same arguments start again. You can't expect people to detail about four or five years of context in every single engagement for the benefit of interested 3rd parties like you or me.
- rob_c 1y ago
  > unable to explain the problem unfortunately that's either due to lack of investigation by yourself or a bit dishonest.
bornfreddy 1y ago
Being an outsider to this whole scene, the whole thread reads very differently to me. Kent seems very patient in explaining his position (and frustrations arising from other people introducing bugs to his code) and the kernel & debian folks are performing a smearing campaign instead of replying to what I see are genuine problems in the process. As an example, the quotes that are referenced by user paravoid are, imho, taken out of context (judging by reading the provided links). There probably is a lot more history to it, but judging from that thread it's not Kent who looks like a bad guy.
- johnny22 1y ago
  it's waaay simpler than that. Some projects have established rules, and kent doesn't want to follow them. It doesn't matter how nice (or not) he is.
  - bornfreddy 1y ago
    I actually like the idea of the maintainer going out of his way to make sure that my filesystem is safe to use. Even if it goes against the established rules. And I'm saying that as someone who actually likes both Linux and Debian.
    - rwmj 1y ago
      It's a strawman to imagine that Debian doesn't have a way to ensure filesystems are safe and to respond to critical bugs that might cause data corruption. It's just that you have to follow their rules to do it. (And broadly the same rules apply to the other big distros as well).
      - rcxdude 1y ago
        And the rules demonstrably create situations where it's easy to introduce bugs or hard to fix them, because they prioritise stability and a consistent set of package versions over the version that the upstream developer has tested. Followed blindly (and without putting in the effort to test to the same level of rigor as upstream), this causes problems, and it's right to point those out. Debian's ways would involve the package maintainer putting in a lot more effort to marry their rules with a package that actually worked, and they were not up for that. (Debian's rules aren't worthless, it's part of how they can make something that's pretty suitable for 'boring infrastructure' systems because they can keep a system with a known and stable set of behavior up to date with critical security fixes for a long time, but boy do they result in some dumb situations sometimes)
Muromec 1y ago
autism is a hell of a social disability sometimes.
- thoroughburro 1y ago
  Don’t smear all of us with the bad behavior one.
mook 1y ago
I think he's too exposed to users reports, because anybody that shows up is in a potential data loss situation. So he's very focused on making everything as bug free as possible, and getting frustrated that people with different focus are not propagating the fixes as fast as possible. Almost makes me think the distros light-forking it to just change the name (IceWeasel style) so the support requests don't get to him will help… probably not, though, because people will still go there because they want to recover their data.

by sevg 1y ago

toast0 1y ago

It's not just kernel development. In the lwn thread, he mentioned and then demonstrated difficulty working with Debian developers as well. IMHO, what his communications show is an unwillingness to acknowledge that other projects that include his work have focus, priorities, and policies that are not the same as that of his project. Also, expecting exceptions to be made for his case, since exceptions have been made in other cases. Again IMHO, I think he would be better off developing apart with an announcement mailing list. When urgent changes are made, send to the announcement list. Let other interested parties sort out the process of getting those changes into the kernel and distributions. If people come with bug reports from old versions distributed by others, let them know how to get the most up to date version from his repository, and maybe gently poke the distributors. Yes, that means users will have older versions and not get fixes immediately. But what he's doing isn't working to get fixes to users immediately either.

ajb 1y ago

I think Kent is in the wrong here, but it really doesn't help that the kernel people from Linus on down are seemingly unable to explain the problem, and instead resort to playground insults. Apart from being unprofessional and making for a hostile work environment, it doesn't really communicate why Kent's actions are problematic, so I've some sympathy for his not believing that they are.

sevg 1y ago
> it doesn't really communicate why Kent's actions are problematic I agree that the kernel community can be a hostile environment. Though I’d argue that people _have_ tried to explain things to Kent, multiple times. At least a few have been calm, respectful attempts. Sadly, Kent responds to everything in an email except the key part that is being pointed out to him (usually his behavior). Or deflects by going on the attack. And generally refuses to apologise.
- ajb 1y ago
  Definitely not saying that the problems are all on one side here. Agreed that going on the attack was bad (as well as dumb). I just think that while, yes, the kernel folks have tried to explain, they didn't explain well. The "why" of it is a people thing. Linus needs to be able to trust that people he's delegated some authority will respect its limits. The maintainers need to be able to trust that each other maintainer will respect the area that they have been delegated authority over. I think that Kent genuinely doesn't get this.
- philipallstar 1y ago
  > Sadly, Kent responds to everything in an email except the key part that is being pointed out to him (usually his behavior). Behaviour sounds like the least important part of code contributions. I smell overpowered, should've-been-a-kindergarten-teacher code of conduct person overreach.
  - dralley 1y ago
    No. As someone who likes bcachefs and even literally donates to Kent's patreon, the way he has gone about engaging with the kernel community is not productive. Unfortunately. CoC isn't even the issue, he constantly breaks kernel development rules relating to the actual code, then starts arguments with everyone up to and including Linus when he gets called out, and aggressively misses the point every time. Then starts the same argument all over again 6 weeks later. And, like, if you don't like some rules, then you can have that discussion, but submitting patches you know will be rejected and then re-litigating your dislike of the rules is a waste of everyone's time.
    - philipallstar 1y ago
      I think it is partly about code of conduct issues[0]. I totally agree that Linus can run whatever release process he likes, and Overbeck should get in line with that. However all of the accompanying sighing at how many times we've had to explain things to him from others is not okay. So what if more discussion is needed or wanted? People doing difficult work might have strong opinions. People doing easy work (e.g. sending code of conduct emails) should not have an equal weight to their opinions, if any at all. [0] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/6740fc3aabec0_5eb129497@dwillia2-xfh.jf.intel.com.notmuch https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/6740fc3aabec0_5eb129497@dwillia...
yxhuvud 1y ago
I've seen plenty of times where the problems has been explained to Kent. But he just don't give a shit about the problems of people that isn't himself or that doesn't use his file system experiences.
- bombcar 1y ago
  It seems very clear to me that it's almost always a "you can't argue canon law with the Pope" situation - the rules say no new features, and it doesn't matter what the definition of "feature" is if the definition AND the rule come from the same person, Linus. You can't win a rules-lawyer argument with the rulemaker.
arp242 1y ago
People have explaining things, at great length, many times. Many of these have been posted to HN before, either as submissions or comments. Kent just does not listen. Every time the discussion starts from the top. Even if you do agree on some compromise, in a month or two he'll just do the same thing again and all the same arguments start again. You can't expect people to detail about four or five years of context in every single engagement for the benefit of interested 3rd parties like you or me.
rob_c 1y ago
> unable to explain the problem unfortunately that's either due to lack of investigation by yourself or a bit dishonest.

bornfreddy 1y ago

Being an outsider to this whole scene, the whole thread reads very differently to me. Kent seems very patient in explaining his position (and frustrations arising from other people introducing bugs to his code) and the kernel & debian folks are performing a smearing campaign instead of replying to what I see are genuine problems in the process. As an example, the quotes that are referenced by user paravoid are, imho, taken out of context (judging by reading the provided links). There probably is a lot more history to it, but judging from that thread it's not Kent who looks like a bad guy.

johnny22 1y ago
it's waaay simpler than that. Some projects have established rules, and kent doesn't want to follow them. It doesn't matter how nice (or not) he is.
- bornfreddy 1y ago
  I actually like the idea of the maintainer going out of his way to make sure that my filesystem is safe to use. Even if it goes against the established rules. And I'm saying that as someone who actually likes both Linux and Debian.
  - rwmj 1y ago
    It's a strawman to imagine that Debian doesn't have a way to ensure filesystems are safe and to respond to critical bugs that might cause data corruption. It's just that you have to follow their rules to do it. (And broadly the same rules apply to the other big distros as well).
    - rcxdude 1y ago
      And the rules demonstrably create situations where it's easy to introduce bugs or hard to fix them, because they prioritise stability and a consistent set of package versions over the version that the upstream developer has tested. Followed blindly (and without putting in the effort to test to the same level of rigor as upstream), this causes problems, and it's right to point those out. Debian's ways would involve the package maintainer putting in a lot more effort to marry their rules with a package that actually worked, and they were not up for that. (Debian's rules aren't worthless, it's part of how they can make something that's pretty suitable for 'boring infrastructure' systems because they can keep a system with a known and stable set of behavior up to date with critical security fixes for a long time, but boy do they result in some dumb situations sometimes)

Muromec 1y ago

autism is a hell of a social disability sometimes.

thoroughburro 1y ago
Don’t smear all of us with the bad behavior one.

mook 1y ago

I think he's too exposed to users reports, because anybody that shows up is in a potential data loss situation. So he's very focused on making everything as bug free as possible, and getting frustrated that people with different focus are not propagating the fixes as fast as possible. Almost makes me think the distros light-forking it to just change the name (IceWeasel style) so the support requests don't get to him will help… probably not, though, because people will still go there because they want to recover their data.