> "Seriously? If you only even considered this is something reasonable to do you should not be anywhere near Linux kernel development. Just go away!"
https://lwn.net/ml/netdev/20200727073509.GB3917@lst.de/ https://lwn.net/ml/netdev/20200728064706.GA21377@lst.de/
But a compile-time dependency on a non-gpl module should be very self-evident, and the documentation explicitly asks people to go and learn about how the GPL works...
Revealing that as Patch 21 of 21 just adds insult to injury. Wasted a lot of peoples time with that one.
The fact that the module in question is from nvidia further shows that the submitter just had no idea of the histoy and culture of the linux developer community. And that is the charitable Interpretation...
The kernel developers have to fend off stuff like that constantly, some are probably pretty jaded by now, which leads to responses like that.
It's normal human nature, most service workers who have to deal with customers have similar problems, and some develop the same kind of behaviour.
If you don't outsource thinking to other people you actually won't get reponses like this.
Telling someone they "should not be anywhere near Linux kernel development" and to "just go away" is degrading and contemptuous.
I knew i forgot someone THANKS!
EDIT: Ahh looking at you comment's you are a anti-bsd troll, so dont waste time searching for proof.
Just curios...why are you so against BSD's (looking at you comments) is it a Fanboy thing? Are you fighting also so hard witch distribution is the best? :)
A response like this would get you a serious talkin' to at just about any place I've worked. Possibly fired, if it was consistent behavior.
I don't care if you're Donald Knuth, Dennis Ritchie and Edgar Djikstra all rolled into one, act like a jerk and you're off of my Christmas list.
Greg KH called this trolling, and he isn't one to mindlessly throw around insults.
Dijkstra would probably have said something like that, though he'd have crafted a pithier way of saying it.
The idea that they need to be more polite about rejecting low quality work is puzzling to me.
First, it's not low quality
Second, for sure you have to be polite if you don't pay him (but even when you do, you should)
Third, imagine a 16yo get smashed like that (not that i say he is) and what a devastating and demotivating thing that could be...welcome to the linux world
Overall, those Superstar Linux dev's are mostly ignorant borderline autistic assholes who can't develop a good Filesystem like XFS or ZFS from scratch, then moan about Nvidia, but work on a computer with around ~100 proprietary systems called firmware. One accusing the OpenBSD peoples for being masturbating security Monkeys just to say (4-6 years later) that they where right (a super rare occasion for a linux super star). You know what i like to say? FUCK YOU LINUX, FUCK YOU GNU (but not grep...gnu grep is nice)
But please come up with real examples, did linux devs ever like "smashed 16yo"?
Also, why don't you set an example and express yourself politely too?
Because i can:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caOq2rDe_C0
EDIT: Oh yeah a attack on a culture...what culture? The Fuck you NVIDIA but we send you firmware because otherwise nothing will work? That Culture?
As far as I can see, if you have to say "no" doing so politely has no downside, whereas behaving like this clearly has some.
As such, submitting a patch that relies on such internals in third-party proprietary code and thus imparts a certain amount of knowledge about those internals to the reader might make the work life of the reviewers more difficult. So it is considered distinctly impolite.
I'm not 100% sure about the exact legal reasons/mechanisms involved, but this has come up previously during the review of Microsoft's DX12 patches for WSL.
"...you really disqualify yourself from kernel work. Please really just go away and stop this crap."
2. How degrading do you consider the submission?
As can be seen from the patchset, there's no conceivable way it could be built into the kernel without having the kernel build depend on proprietary headers, effectively disqualifying it entirely. This all-important fact is revealed in the very last patch of a 21-patch patchset, wasting everyone's time, and a lot of it. It's either utter carelessness, stupidity, or outright malice to ask for something like this to be included into a loudly-and-clearly GPL-licensed kernel.
Then just disqualify it, cite the reasons for why, and move on. No need for attacks, no need to tell the other person to fuck off. There's enough badness in the patch that you don't need to resort to criticizing the submitter.
"This all-important fact is revealed in the very last patch of a 21-patch patchset, wasting everyone's time, and a lot of it. It's either utter carelessness, stupidity, or outright malice to ask for something like this to be included into a loudly-and-clearly GPL-licensed kernel.
----
In the end, all I have to say to you is:
If I walk up to you in the street and slap you in the face, unprovoked, surely the noble thing for you to do is to politely tell me off; but I will not hold it against you if you were to lose your cool and retaliate.
A code maintainer's job is to curate, coordinate, help, and sometimes (in this case, notably) also gatekeep. If you can't stand the occasional terrible code and have to resort to personal attacks in order to vent off, or to feel better (or because you feel personally insulted) - then that seems to me that you're bad at your job.
If we're going with parallels - seeing this sort of behavior and excuses reminds me of people excusing police abuse. If you can't be cool and deescalate the occasional problem - maybe this job's not for you.
1. We both know it wasn't just "a patch". Downplaying what happened doesn't serve the discussion.
2. I do not see "If you only even considered this is something reasonable to do you should not be anywhere near Linux kernel development. Just go away!" as a personal attack, but as an attack against _the behaviour_ that _deliberately_ wastes a lot of one's time. Note the _"if you ... considered this ..."_.
----
> I wouldn't ever compare these to being slapped in the face, unprovoked, on the street.
This is not the comparison I made. I compared the reactions of the offended and your comments on said reactions. Let me try again, in clear terms: I find it understandable when someone doesn't react calmly and politely to having a lot of their time _deliberately_ wasted and their principles attacked.
> ... the occasional terrible code ...
See, again, I think you're severely downplaying what happened. The LKML regularly sees "the occasional terrible code". This is not one of them. Not even close.
> ... this sort of behavior and excuses reminds me of people excusing police abuse.
That is a ridiculous comparison to make. The LKML does not exist to "protect and serve" the public, is not funded by the public, or even remotely responsible for law & order & safety & peace of the public.
It is a private group of like-minded people that happen to be open to public participation. If you go and take a dump on their lawn, don't be surprised at some harsh words thrown back at you.
And definitely don't compare a handful of harsh words that are easily brushed aside for gruesome physical brutality and blatant wilful murder.
> ... the occasional problem ...
Again, you are severely downplaying what happened. What was posted is not an example of "the occasional problem" — there's plenty of those in the lists. What was returned wasn't nearly as toxic.
what the people who use/develop kernel would do when they become unable to modify large part of kernel code that is highly needed for their work?
business doesnt work like typical consumer, there is no "products" that they pick from the big market