Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> these were both very public forums

Only in the sense that you can view them on the Internet. But there are lots of forums that anyone can view on the Internet, with a wide variety of norms. Just as in the real world, there are lots of "public" places where in theory anyone can show up, with a wide variety of norms. Anyone who doesn't like the norms of a particular place is free not to go there.

> the fact that there were in fact two very different presentations here from Linus is further proof of the fact that one of them was uncalled for

No, it isn't, because, once again, the two presentations were made in different contexts for different purposes. On the GCC bug tracker, Linus' purpose was to inform them of the issue and try to help resolve it. On the kernel mailing list, his purpose was to make sure that the compiler issue did not result in problems with the kernel. The latter purpose may well require a different style of presentation than the former; and since it's Linus' kernel and mailing list, he gets to judge what style is required to accomplish his purpose there.



Looks like you chose to nitpick two minor points of my last message instead of focusing on the single substantial point which still remains.

However, I will still respond to your nitpicks: public is public. If you don't want to be seen as an unsavory character, you would do well to not say mean and nasty things about other human beings in public (and as the Donald Sterling case taught us, perhaps even in private). If you want to be a truly virtuous human being, you will not do so either in public or in private but that is certainly up to you to decide. I think it is the case that a person who bad mouths people in their [perceived] absence but not in their presence is a morally compromised individual but that is for you to decide if you want to keep company with that sort or not. Just be forewarned: if they are bad mouthing other people around you then they are likely doing the same about you in your absence.

My response to your second nitpick is essentially the same as the one above. But, I would still be interested to see if you have any thoughts on the [remaining previously ignored] substantial point in my last message to you.


> that is certainly up to you to decide

Indeed. And the same applies to Linus.

> the single substantial point which still remains

If you mean the fact that in his LKML post (but not in the GCC bug tracker) Linus attributed the bug to "incompetence/ willful ignorance/ etc" instead of assuming that it just snuck in (I'm not sure I agree with that interpretation, but I'll adopt it here for the sake of discussion), for a bug that's severe enough to make Linus prohibit kernel compiles using the affected version of gcc, I'm not sure what the difference is, practically speaking. Either way, the compiler can't be used with the bug present, so, substantively, it doesn't matter whether the bug just snuck in or the GCC developers wilfully ignored the behavior; that version of gcc can't be used to compile the kernel until the bug is fixed.


As you so aptly pointed out, the GCC maintainers are no fools but rather mature, competent professionals. I think the explanation that it was a simple oversight is far more likely than malice or incompetence.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: