Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

University of Minnesota Linux "Hypocrite Commit" Researchers Publish Open Letter

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • microcode
    replied
    Originally posted by andyprough View Post
    They should be unbanned. Cancel culture has no place in a software movement whose foundational concepts are all derived from freedom of speech.
    Uhh... I mean, an open source project like this is inherently editorial. Greg has no obligation to lend his "voice" to any given expression.

    I'm sure they will eventually be unbanned, but having your patches merged into upstream Linux is not a right, nor is it even desirable, if you have any interest in the quality of the finished product.

    Leave a comment:


  • stefansaraev
    replied
    Originally posted by ddriver View Post

    If you need to check if the quality inspection of that manufacturer, then yes - that is the way. If it is a critical component, you cannot base safety on a long chain of "it is supposedly tested" - it has to be tested at every step. And how can you verify that it is tested at every step other than to... test every testing step. And you can't do that without sending defective units, to see if those get detected.
    what a bulls***. it's not your job to check the "quality inspection" of that manufacturer. why would a person in his sane mind think he has the rights to do so ??
    Last edited by stefansaraev; 25 April 2021, 04:10 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • oiaohm
    replied
    Originally posted by ihatemichael View Post
    I'm curious what those actions are.
    You can bet some form of punishment for those who did the wrong thing is in there not just words of sorry. This will not be up for debate.

    Also the fact this bit "Linux Foundation and the Linux Foundation's Technical Advisory Board submitted a letter on Friday to your University" means they have given up talking to the individual and its under the code of conduct.

    Yes its very simple to miss that Contributor can mean you as a Individual or the large entity you are part of in this case the University that will be held to account. Yes in this case the University now has to punish the Individuals that did wrong. If the University does not this could get way worse yet.

    You don't want legal involved with how much stuff the Linux kernel is using in the possible damages exceeds the total capital of all the Universities in the USA let along a single university. Remember the IBM/SCO case the legal firms behind Linux kernel are not scared by decades of litigation. Fun point if that happens the persons qualifications can be block from the courts from being issued before they are dead also all current qualifications rendered null and void by court order until case is resolved. I would not be past thinking that the Linux guys have asked for the people involved qualifications to be revoked.

    These actions have poked a very well resourced group.
    Last edited by oiaohm; 25 April 2021, 03:32 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • ihatemichael
    replied
    Originally posted by greg k-h
    Thank you for your response. As you know, the Linux Foundation and the Linux Foundation's Technical Advisory Board submitted a letter on Friday to your University outlining the specific actions which need to happen in order for your group, and your University, to be able to work to regain the trust of the Linux kernel community. Until those actions are taken, we do not have anything further to discuss about this issue.
    I'm curious what those actions are.

    Leave a comment:


  • skeevy420
    replied
    Originally posted by OneTimeShot View Post

    Ok - I'm going to tell you something really important I learned from my supervisor very early on at University:

    "The more flowery and complex the language you use to explain something, the less convinced your audience will be that you actually understand the material."
    I learned this one in 6th or 7th grade:

    K.I.S.S

    Keep It Simple, Stupid

    Leave a comment:


  • Vistaus
    replied
    Originally posted by tildearrow

    Please stop. There may be a lot of good commits in there, so this is just regressing rather than progressing.
    You may even end up breaking the kernel by doing that.......

    That's like if I were to not eat a fruit salad only because it has apples on it (but the rest of the dish is good).
    Normally, I'd agree, but in this case time is scarce and work is plenty, so unless someone steps up to re-review those commits (perhaps you?), it's best to remove them for now.

    Leave a comment:


  • oiaohm
    replied
    Originally posted by pal666 View Post
    they are writing followup paper "how to easily regain community trust by posting open letter"
    No they about to find out the reality that a ban like this cannot be reversed in under 2 kernel release cycles or 180 days and that is if you do all the right things.

    Linux kernel maintainers don't make snap judgements on this stuff in either direction.

    Leave a comment:


  • pal666
    replied
    they are writing followup paper "how to easily regain community trust by posting open letter"

    Leave a comment:


  • DanL
    replied
    Originally posted by Sonadow View Post
    And I still continue to stand by my claims of virtue signalling.
    And I still stand by my claim that this has nothing to do with virtue signalling or cancel culture and you (et al) are using those terms way too broadly.

    Leave a comment:


  • oiaohm
    replied
    Originally posted by Sonadow View Post
    Many of the hypocrites in here are threatening fire and brimstone and making grand claims about ethics to those who will dare to do anything bad to their beloved kernel, never mind that a good portion here have never ever written a single line of code, but will eagerly turn around and put the same people up on a pedestal if it were Windows, the NT kernel or Microsoft's projects that were the subject of the 'research'.
    Sonadow the horrible part here is that we know Microsoft windows source has been used for the same kinds of research done legally in the past with modified source being provided to different countries to see if they were reviewing the code or not. Of course this stuff does not get any media coverage.

    Closed source software has been caught many times doing the same things on end users to work out what features they can remove from products as well. Yes X11 server from x.org did the add bugs to find out if a part is used or not.

    Please do note the stuff done with Windows, X11 server x.org.... all have one thing in common the lead maintainers knew exactly what was going on. This case going behind the lead maintainers back to possible introduce flaws is not on. This is all about approval.

    Sonadow doing this stuff without approval from the lead maintainers be it a open source or closed source maintainer is in fact illegal it falls under sabotage laws and illegal usages of computer laws.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X