Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Torvalds' Comments On Linux Scheduler Woes: "Pure Garbage"

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

  • #51
    Originally posted by CochainComplex View Post
    Somehow like those teens throwing out some rap phrases, wearing baggypants and thinking they are as cool and respectable as the drug overlords in projects nearby.
    Does anyone else get an "out-of-touch grumpy grandpa" vibe out of the choice to use this analogy?

    Originally posted by menasaw683 View Post
    I'll grant you that some words could have been selected more... precisely but, to call them rude? That, in and of itself, is quite rude. Or, it might be perceived as such by some. You see the issue I am trying to point out here? By focussing so incredibly hard on the exact choice of words you are only contributing to the very toxicity you seek to prevent or cure. Not only because you're now part of calling people out in quite a harsh manner, over matters that are incidental but also because you're implying imposing a will onto others.

    That... is rude. Very much so even.

    Furthermore, by dragging on the vocabulary narrative you're only contributing to derailing the issue further and further away from where it needs to be. The Google developer in question called out an issue with the CFS scheduler. And yes, there might very well be an issue with it. And the focus should have been kept on that. And Linus mostly tried to keep it there. And so have most of us in this topic. Yet, here you are... continuing to attempt to derail it in the direction of vocabulary. Why? Why do people like you do that? And no, I do not want a literal answer. I want you to think on it for yourself. Really, I mean it... do not provide me with an answer, provide yourself with one.
    I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed that. It reminds me of this excerpt from something RationalWiki did well... this passage from the Identity politics as a vehicle for oppression section of their Identity politics page:

    "speech codes" and other new forms of etiquette are some of its more conspicuous successes. In essence, identity politics is constantly generating new forms of etiquette. But, since the function of etiquette is to perform social status and rank, and all etiquettes create an underclass of the rude and uncouth[20], identity politics constantly undermines the egalitarianism it aspires to in theory, and as such tends to exaggerate class resentments the more rigorously its new etiquettes are enforced.
    Social constructionism invites us to believe that we can change the world by using different words. As such, building on its postmodernist tendencies, identity politics as an academic exercise generates a great deal of jargon. This obscurantist approach comes at a price, however — deconstructionists have been criticized for constructing elaborate systems of such jargon which seems indistinguishably like a device for wrapping empty ideas in the appearance of sophistication.
    (TL;DR: Faffing about with caring about using exactly the right language fosters resentment because, on some level, we perceive its potential as a means for the powerless to gain un-earned and purely on-paper superiority over others who can't keep up with the treadmill of new etiquette.)
    Last edited by ssokolow; 01-05-2020, 06:52 PM.

    Comment


    • #52
      Bah. Got my post flagged because I was too lazy to strip all the links from a quotation from a wiki article. Paging Michael!

      That said, I should amend it and, since I can't amend an unapproved post, here's the amendment early:

      ...that said, the thrust of the problem is definitely a fixation on ignoring how Torvalds is attacking and insulting the argument, methodology, and conclusion rather than the person making them.

      "Attack the argument, not the person making it" is the classic statement about how to argue properly.
      Last edited by ssokolow; 01-05-2020, 07:08 PM.

      Comment


      • #53
        Originally posted by ssokolow View Post

        Does anyone else get an "out-of-touch grumpy grandpa" vibe out of the choice to use this analogy?



        I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed that. It reminds me of this excerpt from something RationalWiki did well... this passage from the Identity politics as a vehicle for oppression section of their Identity politics page:



        (TL;DR: Faffing about with caring about using exactly the right language fosters resentment because, on some level, we perceive its potential as a means for the powerless to gain un-earned and purely on-paper superiority over others who can't keep up with the treadmill of new etiquette.)
        When I was 15 it wore baggy pants too cool late 1990. So I know how I felt back then ...cool. But when you turn 30 you should start to realise that "earning respect" does not relate to cool rude phrases (at least not in the peer group I belong to). But maybe adoring "Cool Rude Linus" is common under gangsta rappers.

        p.s.: last paragraph has some valid points - I also don't like the very right language but it has to be distinguised between slight nounces not appropiate or used for rethorical shaping or feeling cool because of slamming around with a limited set of insults just for the feel good factor.
        Last edited by CochainComplex; 01-05-2020, 07:26 PM.

        Comment


        • #54
          Originally posted by Creak View Post
          Just by seeing how some people here consider the Google developer to "showed himself a fool", or that he "sucks", or that he "was talking mostly out of his rear", or even making a general affirmation that "Google is becoming pathetic". This explains why words are important. If Linus would have been less rude, maybe you lot would have been less rude too.
          No, Google developer wrote bullshit about Linux scheduler being bad. He should write another one and say: SORRY, I WAS WRONG and I wasted your time.

          This, to me, is the exact definition of a toxic community.
          Good definition of Google fools.

          I know other open source communities where you can be told you're wrong without telling you you're stupid.
          I know people who educate themselves and ask others before making idiotic claims. However, this Google script kiddie looks like a fool now. It makes me wonder how broken Zircon will be.

          Comment


          • #55
            Originally posted by CochainComplex View Post
            When I was 15 it wore baggy pants too cool late 1990. So I know how I felt back then ...cool. But when you turn 30 you should start to realise that "earning respect" does not relate to cool rude phrases (at least not in the peer group I belong to). But maybe adoring "Cool Rude Linus" is common under gangsta rappers.
            My point is that, to me, that analogy makes the original argument come across as less grounded in reality and more in the kind of stale "black culture is the problem" out-of-touchness Bill O'Reilly used to spew on Fox News.

            Originally posted by CochainComplex View Post
            p.s.: last paragraph has some valid points - I also don't like the very right language but it has to be distinguised between slight nounces not appropiate or used for rethorical shaping or feeling cool because of slamming around with a limited set of insults just for the feel good factor.
            Could you proofread and repeat that? I'm having trouble making sense of it.

            Comment


            • #56
              Here is a geekbench on xanmod 5.4.6 CFS and xanmod 5.4.6 BMQ

              CFS: https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/950917

              BMQ: https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/952640

              Tho geekbench is not so good and it doesnt measure gaming performance.

              Comment


              • #57
                Originally posted by Volta View Post

                While I'm not native English speaker I sometimes doubt Michael knows this language better.. Google developer sucks btw.
                Dude wasn't a google developer. He was working on Rage 2, porting it to Stadia. Google doesn't port the games.

                Comment


                • #58
                  Originally posted by Beherit View Post
                  ”room for improvement” is #1 on my loathe-list of corporate lingo.
                  I vote for "wheelhouse" personally.

                  Comment


                  • #59
                    Originally posted by menasaw683 View Post
                    I disagree; wholeheartedly even. And here is why -- Assume for a moment you're at at your job and you're performing your assigned task to a sub-par standard. At some point or another, your manager will have to make you aware of this fact. And there really comes a moment at which point negative words, such as 'poor', 'no' and other such words do come into play. This is perfectly normal and always has been. Suggesting otherwise is just SJW-foolishness.

                    The nature of language requires this balance between both positive language and negative language. Whether the word is 'poor' or 'un-good', the point remains the same and always has remained the same. There literally is no way to create a natural language that does not, at some point, use words that describe things in a negative manner.

                    And the point I am making is this -- Read WHAT Linus is saying, not HOW he is saying it. The MESSAGE is important. Not the language used to convey said message. And the message itself is quite clear and hardly rude on its own. It simply is criticism of the methodology used by the Google developer to arrive at, obviously, incorrect conclusions. Again, at some point you will fail. Everyone does. And one has to be made aware of this failure. There is no way around this and no way to improve understanding other than being made aware of things we're doing wrong.

                    So, no... let's stop this excessive SJW-bullshit already. The Google developer works for Google... I think they're quite aware of the concept of criticism and being made aware of different points of view. They do not white knights protecting them from Linus' supposedly harsh language (which I never agreed with, I actually always found him quite tame to be truthful, kind of boring actually), they need to take what is being said and use that to improve their own methodology.

                    The goal is important. Not the words used to get to that goal. Substance over form, please.
                    Stating "And be aware that the likelihood that you know what you are doing is basically nil." is basically saying "you're stupid" rather than "you're wrong". It's a message indicating they have nothing useful to contribute.

                    Comment


                    • #60
                      Originally posted by gigaplex View Post
                      Stating "And be aware that the likelihood that you know what you are doing is basically nil." is basically saying "you're stupid" rather than "you're wrong". It's a message indicating they have nothing useful to contribute.
                      I interpreted that line as being more that what the developer was trying to do is something people commonly attempt because the nature of locks are misunderstood, the difficulty in doing it correctly is very high, and that the proper use of spinlocks in user space is so limited in scope most people wouldn't care to use them anyway.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X