Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Shut the F*ck up!!!

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    syklops
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,966 ✭✭✭✭syklops


    Johnboy1951 wrote: »
    Speculation ...... and also irrelevant.

    You reckon being a 'founding member' gives him some right to abuse others ..... or some 'context' would do so?

    :rolleyes:

    You keep using the word abuse. He told him to STFU over email when he was talking rubbish. Hardly cyber bullying now is it?

    And no, I dont think being a founder gives him the right to abuse people, but someone said that had it been a company he would have been fired. Yes, if it was a company and Linus was a regular employee he would be in hot water, but he wrote the original kernel and he has managed the project for over 20 years. He would have to torture kittens or something before he gets ostracised from the community.

    I really don't understand the point of this thread. Its like something from a primary school play ground. "Oh my god, he said the F-word! In an email! How dare he?!?"


  • Options
    #33
    Khannie
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 37,485 Mod ✭✭✭✭Khannie


    syklops wrote: »
    You keep using the word abuse. He told him to STFU over email when he was talking rubbish. Hardly cyber bullying now is it?

    No, he told him to STFU in front of potentially millions of people. It's not quite the same as dropping him a mail. If he had sent the same mail privately the same thing would have been achieved without him looking like a cock, tbh.


  • Options
    #34
    syklops
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,966 ✭✭✭✭syklops


    Khannie wrote: »
    No, he told him to STFU in front of potentially millions of people. It's not quite the same as dropping him a mail. If he had sent the same mail privately the same thing would have been achieved without him looking like a cock, tbh.

    I'd feel the opposite tbh. I'd rather get that kind of "abuse" in an open way that others can see. If I got a private, 1 to 1 email from someone "abusing" me, it would feel more targeted and personal.


  • Options
    #35
    Khannie
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 37,485 Mod ✭✭✭✭Khannie


    Each to their own, but I'd say you're in a minority there. The bollocking feeling compounded by others being aware of it IMO. Certainly I believe that, in general, a bollocking is probably a bad idea. If you need to shout and curse and swear at someone in a professional capacity then you're probably not very professional.


  • Options
    #36
    syklops
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,966 ✭✭✭✭syklops


    Khannie wrote: »
    Each to their own, but I'd say you're in a minority there. The bollocking feeling compounded by others being aware of it IMO. Certainly I believe that, in general, a bollocking is probably a bad idea. If you need to shout and curse and swear at someone in a professional capacity then you're probably not very professional.

    We are not talking about a in professional capacity. Linux and kernel.org are community-based projects. I'm in work and Im wearing suit trousers and a white shirt. If I went to an ILUG meeting, no-one would care what I wore, but in work I have to remain professional looking(whatever the hell that means). People seem to be having trouble understanding that while Red Hat is a company, Linux is not.

    To compare, Ive been to soccer matches where the coach eff'ed at the team. While maybe not the best way to go about coaching a team,but it is still acceptable. What would not be acceptable would be the coach taking one player aside and cursing him out of it. That would be a big no no.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    limnam
    Registered Users Posts: 9,169 ✭✭✭limnam


    Khannie wrote: »
    Each to their own, but I'd say you're in a minority there. The bollocking feeling compounded by others being aware of it IMO. Certainly I believe that, in general, a bollocking is probably a bad idea. If you need to shout and curse and swear at someone in a professional capacity then you're probably not very professional.

    The majority probably work in a warm, sweet and fluffy enviroment. This has nothing to do with companies or professionalism not sure why people keep referring to companies. It's not a company and getting a bollocking in public is the nature of the code in public beast.

    I think we're being a tad oversensitive here. The guy made a school boy error with years of experience and tried to pawn the blame on someone else and got told where to go.

    This really is a non issue.


  • Options
    #38
    mooonpie
    Registered Users Posts: 255 ✭✭mooonpie


    Johnboy1951 wrote: »
    Speculation ...... and also irrelevant.

    You reckon being a 'founding member' gives him some right to abuse others ..... or some 'context' would do so?

    :rolleyes:

    There's a subtle difference between 'a' founding member and 'the' founding member. As has been said, the kernel is Linus' baby and he has final say.
    Khannie wrote: »
    No, he told him to STFU in front of potentially millions of people. It's not quite the same as dropping him a mail. If he had sent the same mail privately the same thing would have been achieved without him looking like a cock, tbh.

    And when another maintainer repeats a similar mistake in a months time he can deal with them 1 on 1 privately too, or he can send one over the top mail highlighting a point to ALL Kernel maintainers (and possible future maintainers) and nobody makes the mistake for a long time.

    If you read the rest of the thread you can see that Mauro sends a rational reply, agrees with many of Linus' points and gives some background to the situation. He's not that traumatised by the whole ordeal

    Besides it's a very valid and important point that should be highlighted to all kernel hackers - don't make changes that affect userspace without plenty of discussion and agreement


  • Options
    #39
    syklops
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,966 ✭✭✭✭syklops


    moonpie9588 wrote: »
    Besides it's a very valid and important point that should be highlighted to all kernel hackers - don't make changes that affect userspace without plenty of discussion and agreement

    And not just kernel hackers. udevd recently changed the naming convention for network interfaces. What has been eth0 for decades is now called em1, thereby braking scripts the world over. Scripts written 20 years ago, by people now retired from the IT industry are failing with the error: "eth0: error fetching interface information: Device not found". Thank you udevd.


  • Options
    #40
    croo
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 1,334 Mod ✭✭✭✭croo


    syklops wrote: »
    And not just kernel hackers. udevd recently changed the naming convention for network interfaces. What has been eth0 for decades is now called em1, thereby braking scripts the world over. Scripts written 20 years ago, by people now retired from the IT industry are failing with the error: "eth0: error fetching interface information: Device not found". Thank you udevd.
    Nice. :eek:
    I wasn't aware of that change, I'll have to be vigilant.


  • Options
    #41
    [-0-]
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,981 ✭✭✭[-0-]


    Mauro's explanation here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/12/24/125


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,795 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    syklops wrote: »
    And not just kernel hackers. udevd recently changed the naming convention for network interfaces. What has been eth0 for decades is now called em1, thereby braking scripts the world over. Scripts written 20 years ago, by people now retired from the IT industry are failing with the error: "eth0: error fetching interface information: Device not found". Thank you udevd.
    To be fair though, any script that assumed the only interesting network interface card in the system is called "eth0" is broken, and has been since it was written.

    We've been bitten several times by the fact that network interface numbering is non-deterministic. At least an interface that's called em1 the first time it comes up will always be called em1; having an interface that was eth3 become eth1 after a reboot is a pretty nasty situation.


  • Options
    #43
    syklops
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,966 ✭✭✭✭syklops


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    To be fair though, any script that assumed the only interesting network interface card in the system is called "eth0" is broken, and has been since it was written.

    We've been bitten several times by the fact that network interface numbering is non-deterministic. At least an interface that's called em1 the first time it comes up will always be called em1; having an interface that was eth3 become eth1 after a reboot is a pretty nasty situation.

    Fair point.


Advertisement