Deprecated Bloodstained Code in the Linux Kernel(lowendbox.com)
lowendbox.com
Deprecated Bloodstained Code in the Linux Kernel
https://lowendbox.com/blog/the-deprecated-bloodstained-code-in-the-linux-kernel/
13 comments
What a strange article... The code isn't bloodstained. The author is. In order for the code to be bloodstained it would have to be directly related or connected in some way. It's not. But I clicked anyways, so I guess that's was the point.
I was pretty disappointed when I got all the way to the end and not a single person was murdered by a b-tree....
> Are the Reiser Kids Fighting in Ukraine?
> [...]
> Meanwhile, Nina’ mother took the children to Russia and refused to return them to the US. They are now prime age for drafting into the Russian armed forces and it’s not implausible to think that they’re fighting in Ukraine.
is this really necessary?
> [...]
> Meanwhile, Nina’ mother took the children to Russia and refused to return them to the US. They are now prime age for drafting into the Russian armed forces and it’s not implausible to think that they’re fighting in Ukraine.
is this really necessary?
Of course not. The title alone should've made you expect such things.
What a sad story...
Thanks! That was interesting!
No part of that is really relevant to the code and it doesnt seem to have any relevance to the fact that it's being removed but it's still an interesting story
It's totally relevant, considering that the reason it's being removed is lack of maintenance.
IIRC, the lack of maintenance predated the murder; the development was focused on reiser4, basically abandoning reiser3, and for that reason there was a higher resistance against merging reiser4, since the kernel maintainers didn't want to risk it being merged and soon abandoned in favor of something else. It didn't help that, IIRC, reiser3 had some unusual locking, being one of the last parts of the kernel which depended on the unusual properties of the Big Kernel Lock.
I mean...
Only if you assume the author would have actually maintained it in the first place. I'm fairly unconvinced that a guy who puts his mail order bride in charge of the company that released the FS is going to be doing much more work on it.
Said more bluntly - it's an unfinished project of a man who had moved on to other things already. It wasn't valuable enough for someone to pick up. So it's getting removed.
It happens to be particularly spicy that the "Other things" he moved on to were murder/prison, but not really related to the code other than as a "hey - this is a crazy aside" moment.
Only if you assume the author would have actually maintained it in the first place. I'm fairly unconvinced that a guy who puts his mail order bride in charge of the company that released the FS is going to be doing much more work on it.
Said more bluntly - it's an unfinished project of a man who had moved on to other things already. It wasn't valuable enough for someone to pick up. So it's getting removed.
It happens to be particularly spicy that the "Other things" he moved on to were murder/prison, but not really related to the code other than as a "hey - this is a crazy aside" moment.
I like the Reiser story.
It's one of the higher profile crimes that's not really related to the technology at all. This is simply about a dude who murdered his wife. But he also happened to be a brilliant programmer writing one of the more advanced filesystems of its time.
Then you get into all of the details. All the steps he took in hiding it. All of the stuff with Russian brides, sex, drugs, and presumably rock and roll.
And how they arrested, tried, and convicted Reiser of the murder without even having direct evidence a murder took place. It's one of my go to examples when people start harping about "circumstantial evidence". Because people often use that term when they want to mean "weak" or "specious". Circumstantial evidence is evidence pertaining to the circumstances of the situation.
Yes, it's a bit circular, but you can't really avoid it as it's literally what it says on the tin. Anything that isn't direct evidence is by definition, circumstantial. And direct evidence is a short list. And often worse than circumstantial evidence. Eyewitness testimony is a form of direct evidence. It is often not that strong because it relies on a person's memory and their senses. Both of which are extremely fallible.
A dead body is direct evidence someone has died. Someone being missing for over a month is circumstantial evidence that they are dead. Reiser insisted that Nina had run off and was in hiding. No one could find her or prove she was dead. He had a vehicle that was bleached down with a missing seat and a bunch of books on "How to get away with murder".
Everything was based on circumstantial evidence.
All of that was what led to his eventual arrest and conviction. He pled down the charges in exchange for showing authorities where the body was.
It's one of the higher profile crimes that's not really related to the technology at all. This is simply about a dude who murdered his wife. But he also happened to be a brilliant programmer writing one of the more advanced filesystems of its time.
Then you get into all of the details. All the steps he took in hiding it. All of the stuff with Russian brides, sex, drugs, and presumably rock and roll.
And how they arrested, tried, and convicted Reiser of the murder without even having direct evidence a murder took place. It's one of my go to examples when people start harping about "circumstantial evidence". Because people often use that term when they want to mean "weak" or "specious". Circumstantial evidence is evidence pertaining to the circumstances of the situation.
Yes, it's a bit circular, but you can't really avoid it as it's literally what it says on the tin. Anything that isn't direct evidence is by definition, circumstantial. And direct evidence is a short list. And often worse than circumstantial evidence. Eyewitness testimony is a form of direct evidence. It is often not that strong because it relies on a person's memory and their senses. Both of which are extremely fallible.
A dead body is direct evidence someone has died. Someone being missing for over a month is circumstantial evidence that they are dead. Reiser insisted that Nina had run off and was in hiding. No one could find her or prove she was dead. He had a vehicle that was bleached down with a missing seat and a bunch of books on "How to get away with murder".
Everything was based on circumstantial evidence.
All of that was what led to his eventual arrest and conviction. He pled down the charges in exchange for showing authorities where the body was.
“Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk.”
—-H.D. Thoreau
Without using <insert search engine of your choice> that this pertains to watering down milk?