The end of LWN comment dialog? [LWN.net]

The end of LWN comment dialog?

Posted Apr 1, 2009 6:07 UTC (Wed) by bojan (subscriber, #14302)
In reply to: The end of LWN comment dialog? by ncm
Parent article: That massive filesystem thread

If you read my original post in this thread, you will find that I am pointing at inconsistencies of what Linus describes as reality check. So, I ridicule (among other things) his conclusion that: ext3 sucks at doing fsync(), hence we should drop fsync().

What exactly is not polite about that? Is sarcasm now verboten on LWN? I see plenty of it. Daily.

In a post not so long ago, someone accused me of hiding behind Ted's authority (although I actually used documentation to support my case - which many don't bother to read, of course). This time, I point out what to me is nonsense coming from an even bigger authority, but that's no good either. I'm not sure what position of mine would satisfy fragile sensibilities here. Only silence, I guess.

This time I was being accused of making snide remarks. So, I replied to ajross using his terminology, although I do not actually agree with that qualification (which you can see from my sarcastic: "see, being snide again" remark) and I should have used "so called snideness" in my reply instead. I am really just being sarcastic, because we are all supposed to rally behind the high priest or something.

Sure, Linus is a genius, but that doesn't mean that whatever he says is beyond criticism. And, I do not see how I am not being polite by exercising criticism with a hint of sarcasm.

What is it exactly that you have the issue with in my posts? What exactly is impolite?

(Log in to post comments)

Yup. It's the beginning of the end.

Posted Apr 1, 2009 7:54 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

If you read my original post in this thread, you will find that I am pointing at inconsistencies of what Linus describes as reality check.

Nope. You are being 100% smart-ass. Linus's reality check is not inconsistent. It's description of reality and reality is not consistent. Whenever it was? You have different factors and in different but quite real situations different factors prevail.

So, I ridicule (among other things) his conclusion that: ext3 sucks at doing fsync(), hence we should drop fsync().

That's different facet of reality. When you consider reality from kernel developer POV what the applications are doing is your "unchangeable fact", your "speed of light", when you consider reality from application developer POV what the kernel does is "unchangeable fact" and you should deal with it. This is true even if kernel developer and application developer is the same person. You can only think differently if your application is designed to only be used "in-house" and you can always guarantee control over both kernel and userspace - and git was not designed to only be used "in-house"...

And, I do not see how I am not being polite by exercising criticism with a hint of sarcasm.

You are exercising ignorance with a hint of sarcasm. That's different.

Yup. It's the beginning of the end.

Posted Apr 1, 2009 8:29 UTC (Wed) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link]

> When you consider reality from kernel developer POV what the applications are doing is your "unchangeable fact", your "speed of light", when you consider reality from application developer POV what the kernel does is "unchangeable fact" and you should deal with it.

Let me review.

When another Unix kernel (or Linux) holds your data in buffers and commits metadata only (because it is allowed to), you, as an application developer, deal with it by ignoring that fact.

And, when your file system does crazy things with the perfectly good system call, you also ignore it as a kernel developer.

WOW, is that now the new "very special relativity"? We pick whichever behaviour is the most narrow to a specific file system and go with that?

Yup. It's the beginning of the end.

Posted Apr 1, 2009 14:22 UTC (Wed) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]

> When another Unix kernel (or Linux) holds your data in buffers and commits metadata only (because it is allowed to), you, as an application developer, deal with it by ignoring that fact.

POSIX allows you never to write data to disk at all. That will make your file system very fast. After all you can have a POSIX-compliant file system that operates off of ramdisk quite easily.

POSIX file system access is designed to describe the interface layer between userland and the file system. It leaves the actual integration between the file system and the hardware, as well as the internals to the file system itself is left up to the developer of the OS.

It is like if you discovered all of a sudden a network service provided by a Apache-based web app uses SSL badly so that all usernames and passwords are transmitted over the Web in plain text... then you complain about it and the developer says back to you that his application's behavior is allowed by TCP/HTTP/SSL and that you should be changing your password with each usage, like people who use his app correctly do. Then he emails you some documentation from a security expert that says you should change your password frequently and that many other protocols like telnet or ftp send your username and password over the network in plain text.

Yup. It's the beginning of the end.

Posted Apr 1, 2009 16:10 UTC (Wed) by foom (subscriber, #14868) [Link]

This is starting to get very repetitive...all these points have been made already at least once in one
of the other article's threads. I'd like to suggest that it might be in everyone's interest to move on to
more useful pass-times than rehashing the same arguments over and over again every time there's
an update on the subject.

sticks & stones

Posted Apr 2, 2009 23:17 UTC (Thu) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link]

> In a post not so long ago, someone accused me of hiding behind Ted's authority

I plead guilty and I apologise. That was immediately after replying to someone else's post the gist of which was "Ted wrote ext2 and ext3 in the first place, he is therefore above criticism." It concluded with the words "Know your place", which got me riled.

[proverb: in the midst of great anger, never answer anyone's letter]

Your words were not so condescending but they had much the same emphasis: all ur filesystems are belong to POSIX (not users) 'cos POSIX is the law, and by the way Ted's interpretation is the only correct one because he's the primary implementor.

I hope you understand where I was coming from. Forgive me.

sticks & stones

Posted Apr 2, 2009 23:56 UTC (Thu) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link]

Nothing to forgive. All is perfectly fine. I enjoy a robust discussion.

The end of LWN comment dialog?

Posted Apr 8, 2009 0:05 UTC (Wed) by jschrod (subscriber, #1646) [Link]

Well, I just decided to give you feedback, from someone who is subscribed to LWN quite a bit longer than you and who did not participate in this topic after you took over all its discussion threads: You showed that LWN really needs a KILL file feature where one can put a poster in it; you, in particular. Others have succinctly explained why, no need to repeat this.

But your self-rightousness doesn't allow to understand this, obviously. Luckily, there are still some discussion threads where you don't try to take over. I hope the likes of you will remain few on LWN in the future, this is not Slashdot, after all.