- cross-posted to:
- linux@programming.dev
- asahilinux@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- linux@programming.dev
- asahilinux@lemmy.world
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/25857381
Hellwig is the maintainer of the DMA subsystem. Hellwig previously blocked rust bindings for DMA code, which in part resulted in Hector Martin from stepping down as a kernel maintainer and eventually Asahi Linux as a whole.
Someone submitted some code to the Linux kernel. One of the maintainers repeatedly denied it for no reason other than it contained code that is not C. A different contributor became very angry, lashed out publicly on social media, accused the maintainer of sabotaging R4L for no technical reason, then removed themselves from the project. They were also the founder of Asahi Linux and resigned from that as well.
It’s nothing to do with Rust, specifically.
Marcan is not the submitter. Unless I’ve missed something, the submitter is still working on the patch.
Yes you’re correct. I’ll update that.
Yeah that is a very opinionated description. Up until “the submitter became very angry, lashed out” that sounds about right, but from there on, your bias shows. Which is fine, and human, but probably worth mentioning this to others reading this. It’s not exactly an objective view, whatever that’s worth.
The part where I exclusively stated facts is opinionated?
Submitter becoming very angry is not an objective view of it, unless you know for a fact they did become not only angry or frustrated, but very angry. Which would still be very leading because of the use of “very” where not necessary. Lash out on someone/something is also a very leading choice of words, since it has connotations beyond the neutral.
I’m just saying a lot of subjectivity on the words chosen, and that others should be aware.
Edit: Also I don’t believe you exclusively stated facts, but that’s neither here or there, this was about leading and biased tone. Which, again, is entirely valid, but not everyone will pick up on those and take it as it is, colors included.
He was using charged language and ultimately wrote a long rant about failed leadership and resigned from the project he founded as a result. I don’t know how you can possibly interpret that any other way.
Yeah, that’s exactly what it is, as you say: Your interpretation. Can’t offer much more as a third party, and I’m not saying it’s wrong or anything, I was just bringing the fact that it is a subjective interpretation up, since it probably isn’t clear for everyone.
“Long rant about failed leadership” is probably not how everyone would describe it/them, either. And just the use of “rant” there, as opposed to something neutral like “a post” or “writing” or whatever, is an example of what I mean. It’s not wrong and doesn’t imply you are wrong, but it is suggestive. Which, again, is fine, I do not understand why not just let the quick note I dropped be, rather than try and fight it for no reason. If you feel it’s unwarranted, just drop a downvote and it’ll go down in the thread and hidden on some clients, too, if it gets enough of those.
Because the “quick note” you dropped is wrong. There’s no defensible position where his reaction can reasonably be interpreted as anything else.
So you dictate the objective truth in situations where there are but interpretations? Any other interpretations are wrong, with a bold font even, other than yours, which you solely deem correct?
Right. I mean this is exactly what I was just dropping in to signal. And it’s not about who or what is right or correct. It’s the use of leading words… that’s all. Jesus.
Yes that’s what I said.
I do not “deem” or “dictate” anything. It is simply reality.