3 ms·

Do you or your team contribute to the Kernel or you just happen to work in a company that contributes?

bgregs 5d ago
Alright, I'll bite this one time, but based on your other responses I'm getting the feeling that you're not interested in points of view that differ from your own. I am not a kernel developer. That being said, I've been here for a bit and have worked across many different teams. Management communication and direction is not a secret here. It is well known what the expectations are for devs. I was directly told as much during a recent internal interview with a post-silicon team. If my lack of direct kernel experience somehow negates the messaging and mandates from management that I see every day, then I guess there's not much more I can contribute to this discussion.
- simianwords 5d ago
  I think using AI for kernel dev vs AI for CRUD dev is an important distinction. In my company of mostly CRUD development, we are not pressured to use AI but we all use it willingly. There are a few who complain but they are a loud minority - almost everyone likes this tech. The reason I asked you is because I already have anecdotes and real life data for CRUD devs. I just can't fathom why people would be pressured to use AI. My hunch is that some people kind of begrudgingly admit that it actually makes people faster and they use it. These kind of people would rather like doing things a bit slowly.
  - bgregs 5d ago
    > I think using AI for kernel dev vs AI for CRUD dev is an important distinction. I completely agree! > I just can't fathom why people would be pressured to use AI. I can only speculate, and I obviously don't have any insight into why the mandates and usage targets exist, so I won't comment on that. I absolutely see value in using AI tooling as an additional validation step, but the generative side is what gives me pause. Maybe I've just seen too many cases of irresponsible use, but I'm not fully convinced that using the tools for _writing_ code produces better results. You were right to callout the distinction, and my apologies if I responded too bluntly. One of your original replies referred to company mandates as "conspiracy theories", which is where my hesitation to engage came from. Anyway, I think we're largely in agreement regarding your closing paragraph.
    - simianwords 5d ago
      No issues, glad that we agree. I personally do use it for generative and I fully see the value for my CRUD engineer type of use. I think kernel development requires more scrutiny and we are not there yet where we can blindly use LLMs for Linux. But my main point is that it is a bit strange to see these patches that are self disclosed as AI use and then come to conclusion that they were pressured to use it rather then use it because it is useful. I have never come across this kind of pressure, which is why I call it a conspiracy theory.

Alright, I'll bite this one time, but based on your other responses I'm getting the feeling that you're not interested in points of view that differ from your own. I am not a kernel developer. That being said, I've been here for a bit and have worked across many different teams. Management communication and direction is not a secret here. It is well known what the expectations are for devs. I was directly told as much during a recent internal interview with a post-silicon team. If my lack of direct kernel experience somehow negates the messaging and mandates from management that I see every day, then I guess there's not much more I can contribute to this discussion.

simianwords 5d ago
I think using AI for kernel dev vs AI for CRUD dev is an important distinction. In my company of mostly CRUD development, we are not pressured to use AI but we all use it willingly. There are a few who complain but they are a loud minority - almost everyone likes this tech. The reason I asked you is because I already have anecdotes and real life data for CRUD devs. I just can't fathom why people would be pressured to use AI. My hunch is that some people kind of begrudgingly admit that it actually makes people faster and they use it. These kind of people would rather like doing things a bit slowly.
- bgregs 5d ago
  > I think using AI for kernel dev vs AI for CRUD dev is an important distinction. I completely agree! > I just can't fathom why people would be pressured to use AI. I can only speculate, and I obviously don't have any insight into why the mandates and usage targets exist, so I won't comment on that. I absolutely see value in using AI tooling as an additional validation step, but the generative side is what gives me pause. Maybe I've just seen too many cases of irresponsible use, but I'm not fully convinced that using the tools for _writing_ code produces better results. You were right to callout the distinction, and my apologies if I responded too bluntly. One of your original replies referred to company mandates as "conspiracy theories", which is where my hesitation to engage came from. Anyway, I think we're largely in agreement regarding your closing paragraph.
  - simianwords 5d ago
    No issues, glad that we agree. I personally do use it for generative and I fully see the value for my CRUD engineer type of use. I think kernel development requires more scrutiny and we are not there yet where we can blindly use LLMs for Linux. But my main point is that it is a bit strange to see these patches that are self disclosed as AI use and then come to conclusion that they were pressured to use it rather then use it because it is useful. I have never come across this kind of pressure, which is why I call it a conspiracy theory.