These posts show we really need to decentralize everything even if not seemingly bad, but for the fact that any one person can effect their will.
If you build software, push forward.
If you build software, push forward.
Plus, as a user, I trust Linus more than any decentralised process I can think of.
Can you make a compelling argument for why that is? Is it that you believe Linus has your personal well being in mind or you are unfamiliar with decentralised "processes"?
edit: Questioning why someone trusts a person they never met over transparent processes that mitigate risks should not deserve downvotes. If we control what can be discussed, we also control what can be known...
Yes, the project is successful, as successful as an open source project can be. It seems to work fine since 1992.
Why would you bring up my personal well being ? Does a decentralised process (whatever that means actually, it's not defined at all yet) take my personal well being in to consideration???
There's a truism that states that past performance is not an indication of future behaviour and I tend to not trust unchecked power.
Linus may have the final say on a lot of things, particularly regarding policy surrounding contributions, but "unchecked" isn't so much an overstatement so much as a joke. Vast numbers of contributors, security auditors, and generally-interested hackers keep close eyes on the Linux kernel.
Decentralisation has three dimensions: Political, Logical and Architectural. In the case of Linux, I argue that the decentralised nature of open-source software development is what guarantees its safety and usefulness and not the individual merits of any one participant (person or company).
I think I'm not saying anything contentious when I say that Linus' employer has no special treatment in terms of linux development roadmap, and that most contributions are voluntary and no one needs to ask permission to download the code and fork the project and this is logical and political decentralisation.
Here's an article by Vitalik from Ethereum Foundation that I always recommend to those interested in understanding decentralisation: https://medium.com/@VitalikButerin/the-meaning-of-decentrali...
"Instead of a roadmap, there are technical guidelines. Instead of a central resource allocation, there are persons an companies who all have a stake in the further development of the Linux kernel, quite independently from one another: People like Linus Torvalds and I don’t plan the kernel evolution. We don’t sit there and think up the roadmap for the next two years, then assign resources to the various new features. That's because we don’t have any resources. The resources are all owned by the various corporations who use and contribute to Linux, as well as by the various independent contributors out there. It's those people who own the resources who decide." - Andrew Morton on the kernel process
I've made the argument elsewhere in this thread that it's the decentralised nature of open-source that makes it safe to use and build on and not the personality or behaviour of any one person. Do you agree?
Decentralisation is the process of ensuring there is no SPF and to minimise unbalances in power.
For instance, in my country, decentralisation would mean we would have independent state law (like the US) and that most of our decision making structures aren't physically and politically centred in the nation's capital. In technology, we can take the Linux kernel maintenance process as an example of how decentralisation makes it possible to have China, US and EU companies funding the development process and using the software without (too much) fear.
What more could you want ?
Actually, instead of hot like before, this Linus is cold. Instead of raging, he coldly expresses his disappointment. In some ways, this feels more brutal than his old style.
Criticizing the mistake as "complete garbage" is great. You don't even need to read anything more to sense Linus is annoyed like he always is when shit hits the fan like this.
Your other comments around that time seemed to be critical of his current behavior, but I see you are correcting that now.
Linus identified that there was an unacceptable action taken and Is being stern so that there can be no ambiguity in the future as to what the accepted action ought to be.
I believe that’s what I said, no? Maybe my phrasing wasn’t clear, but I said “I don’t see any of the latter here” with latter being “personal attacks”.
> Linus identified that there was an unacceptable action taken and is being stern so that there can be no ambiguity in the future as to what the accepted action ought to be.
Completely agree with this sentiment.
Anyway, it looks too polite, like he is filtering the email using a "polite" version of the "simple" English writer by xkcd https://xkcd.com/simplewriter/
Maybe a CoC and some time off for Linus wasn't all that bad after all...
I assume the downvotes are coming from those who disagree with the CoC.
He was both polite ~ yet criticizing. His expressed his annoyance in a great way.
"Complete garbage" is polite for Linus, compared to his old style. Still brutal, yet effective.
Linus is something of genius when it comes to criticism, whether he's swearing and venting, or coldly and bluntly saying the above to make a point.
He's just more choosy about his wording.
Nevertheless, he gets his point across very well:
> Yeah, this is complete garbage.
> Eric, your behavior is entirely out of line
> There are no excuses.
> I will not take any pull requests from you until you have made it clear that you comprehend this very fundamental issue.
Now, Linus may not be explicitly swearing ~ but it comes across in the very same annoyed manner.
Best burn here is him flatly telling Eric that he won't be pulling anything from him until he fixes his attitude.
It's not the contributors personal attitude that's in question here but his attitude towards breaking user space, so it's not even ad hominem or anything.
> Eric, I want to make this 1000% clear: there are no user space bugs.
> If it used to work, then user space was clearly doing the right thing.
> The fact that you tried to several times claim it was buggy user space is a serious breach of trust.
I find Linus' wording remarkably polite. Surely you're not suggesting that Linus should accept breakage of user space out of sheer politeness?
What I meant by attitude is exactly what you meant ~ the nonchalant attitude towards breaking userspace, and thinking that it's okay if no-one notices.
Which is when Linus gets the most pissed of all.
Linus was polite, yes, but he expressed his anger and disappointment in a great way. Feels more brutal than his old style, actually.
Yea, it's even stronger without the swearwords.
> Linus hasn't lost his touch,
I misread that comment of yours as "Linus is still being too rude".
Basically, Eric might be forced to go through others, who will examine his work for pulling quality.
If Eric can prove that he's changed for the better, Linus may well start pulling from him again.
Linus isn't some evil dictator ~ he's just trying to make a point that quality matters.