Propogation and glorification [LWN.net]

Propogation and glorification

Posted Jul 18, 2013 17:22 UTC (Thu) by corbet (editor, #1)
In reply to: On kernel mailing list behavior by josh
Parent article: On kernel mailing list behavior

Could you give some examples, please, as to where you think that we have inappropriately glorified such behavior? It would be good to know where we are perceived to have gone over the line.

to post comments

Propogation and glorification

Posted Jul 18, 2013 18:14 UTC (Thu) by josh (subscriber, #17465) [Link] (7 responses)

Let me start by saying I think LWN is far better than most tech press about not muckraking. But even then, that's something that should be explicitly stated; it's not an unreasonable editorialization to toot your own horn on that front and make it clear that you're making an effort in this area.

That said, a few examples from a quick skim (and I've likely missed some, especially since I only checked recent kernel quote pages).

https://lwn.net/Articles/530215/
> The problem is that driver authors _ARE_ stupid, lazy morons who don't bother to read documentation.

https://lwn.net/Articles/507109/
The full mail from Linus containing that quote is a good example of how profanity is not required for an over-the-top flame. Yes, the code was terrible; was that level of response *really* necessary, though? The clear explanation of why the C code didn't make sense, and the behavior of C, was useful, but LWN wasn't quoting the mail for that, it was quoting the mail because of the associated elaborate way of calling someone an idiot over a style issue.

https://lwn.net/Articles/501768/
Borderline.

https://lwn.net/Articles/486377/
Again, at least LWN was appropriately selective.

https://lwn.net/Articles/453967/
This one at least includes a disclaimer. :)

One from outside the quotes page:
https://lwn.net/Articles/528107/
The mail from Linus linked from that article seems like a good example of the kind of thing not to encourage. At least LWN's quote left out the more offensive bits.

And, to get meta for a moment:
https://lwn.net/Articles/490383/
> Publicly making fun of people is half the fun of open source programming.
> In fact, the real reason to eschew programming in closed environments is that you can't embarrass people in public.

(Understandable sentiment, but there's an obvious difference in target between "review code in public" and "embarass people in public".)

Propogation and glorification

Posted Jul 18, 2013 20:08 UTC (Thu) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] (6 responses)

OK, so...

The Russell King quote was definitely marginal. The point was that many developers don't see much reason to work on documentation because they don't think it will be read. There was a better quote in that conversation that I could have used, though, granted. It's not like this was even an amusing flame.

For this one, Linus was having fun with the code, yes. Was it really that bad? (I'll note that we're now a year in the past, incidentally).

In this one, Steve was expressing his frustration with users who want a problematic (and arguably nonsensical) system configuration to work. It was not aimed at anybody in particular. Who was offended by this one?

Here is really just a restatement of the no regressions policy, along with an expression of frustration with people who ignore that policy. It communicates a clear point.

This one talks about the evils of rebasing in the context of a particular problematic pull request. Among other things, it seems like a proper service to LWN readers, who have a relatively high chance of being the authors of pull requests, to let them know how Linus feels about rebasing of trees.

This one, you said, is "a good example of the kind of thing not to encourage". I don't think that Linus is amenable to encouragement from me in any direction. In this case, we had the definitive end to an ongoing disagreement that had been documented here; I felt the need to document that as well. Should I pretend that Linus's involvement didn't happen? I thought that Linus's disinterest in the alleged bypassing of normal kernel procedures was an important part of the story.

The last one was from a G+ post; it was already highly visible. If nothing else, it documents how Linus claims to feel on this topic. You're not the first to call that one out, though; perhaps it would have been best skipped over.

In other words, most of those quotes were chosen for a specific reason that was not "it's a creative flame." Doubtless some of the choices could have been done better. But I have to ask what you think should be done differently in general; should LWN pretend that these discussions don't exist? Is it really your position that we should not have quoted any of those seven messages?

You seem to have looked at about two years worth of history, during which, I would guess, LWN has posted probably 5-10,000 messages from the kernel mailing lists. Even if all seven examples were a mistake, it's still a pretty low rate, I would think.

Anyway, I will try to be more careful in the choice of quotes. But not, I don't think, to a point of presenting a distorted picture of how specific conversations go. I'm not sure that would help anybody.

Thanks for pointing these out, it really does help to know what readers think.

Propogation and glorification

Posted Jul 19, 2013 0:45 UTC (Fri) by rgmoore (✭ supporter ✭, #75) [Link]

For this one, Linus was having fun with the code, yes. Was it really that bad? (I'll note that we're now a year in the past, incidentally).

That quote was also paired with one that shows the exact opposite tendency; Matthew Garrett changed a magic number from a submitter because it spelled out something offensive in leetspeak.

Propogation and glorification

Posted Jul 19, 2013 1:35 UTC (Fri) by bloopletech (guest, #71203) [Link]

As a paid subscriber to LWN, I would like to express the opposite opinion: I 100% enjoy the colourful tirades and flames, and would not like to seem them diminished by manipulative editorialising.

I understand what you are trying to accomplish, and I empathise (though not necessarily agree) with the goal of raising standard of behaviour.

However, the Quotes page is there to report on what _actually happened_, and I think that editorialising it in such a way that quotes are rejected, not because they are uninteresting or unamusing or have limited impact, but because they represent actions people might not agree with, is manipulative.

I don't want to brew a storm in a teacup, but I think it's important to delineate the boundary between reporting and editorialising.

Propogation and glorification

Posted Jul 19, 2013 10:27 UTC (Fri) by daniel (guest, #3181) [Link]

Jon, I would tend to agree with those who opine that you occasionally appear to express approval of behaviour that an impartial observer might regard as abusive. You certainly seldom criticize it. However, I will not support these assertions with examples, I will just provide my "me too". And also my "thank you on balance for being Jon".

Propogation and glorification

Posted Jul 19, 2013 12:41 UTC (Fri) by shmget (guest, #58347) [Link]

"Thanks for pointing these out, it really does help to know what readers think. "

OH! wait a minute... who electing him reader-representative...

Please do _not_ change a things.. these quotes, and especially the one selected here, are a nice part of my weekly LWN entertainment.

I know I'm going to find insightful and educative article, but I am also looking forward to the 'quotes' section, hoping for a good chuckle or two

Propogation and glorification

Posted Jul 29, 2013 8:59 UTC (Mon) by fb (guest, #53265) [Link]

FWIW, I am trying to keep away from this discussion (from what I gather I think the situation with the kernel will have to get worse before it gets better). Joining now because it is somewhat LWN related. I site a care a lot about due to its quality.

I'd like to add a +1 to that comment asking LWN to be careful in its quotes section to avoid glorifying or celebrating abusive and or rude behavior. While each and every one of those quotes had somehow a reason behind them (at least in the author's mind), giving prominence to those quotes helps IMHO reinforce the notion that such a behavior is acceptable.

I'm taking the time to mention this because LWN is great and I enjoy it a lot. It is due to LWN that I get to be pointed to quite a few excellent emails such as the one from the first quote here https://lwn.net/Articles/515867/.

Propogation and glorification

Posted Aug 6, 2013 9:38 UTC (Tue) by jschrod (subscriber, #1646) [Link]

> Anyway, I will try to be more careful in the choice of quotes.

Please, don't.

I'm late to the discussion since I was on holidays -- but, as a paid subscriber (and a quite early one, at that), I want to add my voice that "josh" is not a representative of my view. Your quotes shows what happens "in the scene" and you should not start to filter them (and thus, your report on the reality that happens) for some perceived standard of politeness of some readers.