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

[oiaohm]

Also, GKH needs to issue a half-apology. Something like "While I initially overreacted and apologize for threatening to pull everything due to being upset by the whole situation, y'all messed up big time and there will be serious repercussions".

Not at all they were researching how the Linux kernel maintainers respond to defective patches. I would not call it overreacted they have now seen first hand what the response is. Complete companies in the past have had there submits include full drivers removed from the Linux due to repeated defects and banned from future submits. This is normally a once a decade event that someone forgets how savagely the Linux kernel maintainers will respond.

[skeevy420]

To be fair... firing 90% of the federal goverment bureaucrats probably would be a net benefit... too bad he didn't.

Depends on your view and what is being fired. I don't think the EPA being rolled back and cut down is a net benefit to anyone....well, except people wanting to increase profits at the expense of the rest of the world. The rich get rich and I get poisonous fish.

[skeevy420]

Not at all they were researching how the Linux kernel maintainers respond to defective patches. I would not call it overreacted they have now seen first hand what the response is. Complete companies in the past have had there submits include full drivers removed from the Linux due to repeated defects and banned from future submits. This is normally a once a decade event that someone forgets how savagely the Linux kernel maintainers will respond.

It's funny. I both agree and disagree; and the reason being is that I think unchecked overreaction is what has lead to the current culture and political climate we're currently dealing with. There's nothing you said that's wrong or that I disagree with, but I still think the initial response could have been toned down to something covering the commits in question while still stating that everything else would be under a scrutinous review.

[ddriver]

Do you really think all this sophistry accomplishes anything? It seems to me just a tactic of misdirection, to divert the discussion when your logical arguments have run out of gas. You seem to get onto these tangents frequently, which naturally leads to suspicion. You could avoid that by just staying on topic.

In any case, it looks to me like a waste of time. Maybe that's my "intellectual insufficiency" speaking, but if you can't make a compelling case to us "realist wannabes, stuck at the shallow end", maybe it's because you don't actually have one.

Do you think throwing in "sophistry" in the capacity of an ungrounded insinuation accomplishes anything?

Try getting into the habit of argumenting your statements. Without argumentation, it is just insinuation. I expect a "coder" to know that a statement that contains no arguments has no side effects, or if you will - achieves and means nothing.

How is it "sophistry" exactly? What, how and why? Seriously asking, in full knowledge of what "sophistry" means.

Misdirection from what? Going off a tangent is the exact opposite of bringing in a conceptually related fact as logical precedent, which I am doing, and you appear to be observing in reverse.

Which of my arguments has ran out of "gas", and how is that even a thing? An argument is either true or not, it is not something that's viable for some duration of fuel availability...

I am going to put it really simple to you, in a last ditch effort to understand your own behavior here:

You basically ask for proof. And when you get it, you simply state that this is actually the proof that is totally absent from your personal claims. On top of the fact that you don't even seem to have any personal position, but rather defending some notion from the position of a loyal conformist.

It just happens that your alleged opinion is independent yet somehow perfect alignment to that of an authoritative institution, which could only be the case if you share an equivalent ethical genius. It could not possibly be you associating with some authority you idealize with the belief this somehow transfers the merit you obviously crave the illusion of.

Let me guess your entire last "flow of logic" here - the sophistication of my responses got a partial match with "sophistry" in the little nifty list of umbrella terms that people like you resort to in extreme situations, so you slapped it on a label, then slapped that on the explanations that you yourself requested, and that somehow magically makes the point you didn't. So basic, elementary really. Step 1 - ask for proof, step 2 claim it actually proves your point.

But enough explaining particle physics to particles for one day...

[OneTimeShot]

I am going to put it really simple to you, in a last ditch effort to understand your own behavior here:
.

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."

[Sonadow]

We've got a "cancel culture" and a "virtue signalling". Can I get a "woke mob"? I mean, enforcing consequences for using the kernel as an unwilling lab rat clearly makes one part of the woke mob.

And I still continue to stand by my claims of virtue signalling.

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'.

[oiaohm]

It's funny. I both agree and disagree; and the reason being is that I think unchecked overreaction is what has lead to the current culture and political climate we're currently dealing with. There's nothing you said that's wrong or that I disagree with, but I still think the initial response could have been toned down to something covering the commits in question while still stating that everything else would be under a scrutinous review.

Remember this was the second offence not the first. The first offence was the first white paper and the garbage they did then in 2020. So the initial response was so far toned down it got no media coverage. The maintainers were looking for this behaviour again and waiting to collect enough data to be as sure as they could be that the second time was a duplicate problem.

Basically skeevy420 this is not the initial response this is a second response to a party who has not taken in what the first response told them. If they push it again we will get to third response that is legal. Only one other party in the history of Linux got the third response and they don't exist as a company any more.

[oiaohm]

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.

[DanL]

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.

[pal666]

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