←back to thread

214 points ksec | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.209s | source
Show context
sevg ◴[] No.45076556[source]
Is it just me or does Kent seem self-destructively glued to his own idea of how kernel development should work?

I don’t doubt that people on all sides have made mis-steps, but from the outside it mostly just seems like Kent doesn’t want to play by the rules (despite having been given years of patience).

replies(5): >>45077241 #>>45077371 #>>45077492 #>>45077724 #>>45080172 #
ajb ◴[] No.45077371[source]
I think Kent is in the wrong here, but it really doesn't help that the kernel people from Linus on down are seemingly unable to explain the problem, and instead resort to playground insults. Apart from being unprofessional and making for a hostile work environment, it doesn't really communicate why Kent's actions are problematic, so I've some sympathy for his not believing that they are.
replies(4): >>45077463 #>>45077573 #>>45077673 #>>45084091 #
yxhuvud ◴[] No.45077573[source]
I've seen plenty of times where the problems has been explained to Kent. But he just don't give a shit about the problems of people that isn't himself or that doesn't use his file system experiences.
replies(1): >>45080324 #
1. bombcar ◴[] No.45080324[source]
It seems very clear to me that it's almost always a "you can't argue canon law with the Pope" situation - the rules say no new features, and it doesn't matter what the definition of "feature" is if the definition AND the rule come from the same person, Linus.

You can't win a rules-lawyer argument with the rulemaker.