Hans Reiser on ReiserFS deprecation in the Linux kernel(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
Hans Reiser on ReiserFS deprecation in the Linux kernel
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/01/convicted-murderer-filesystem-creator-writes-of-regrets-to-linux-list/
84 comments
>Many of us suffer with social skills but we don't murder people for it.
And what should he do? Just go die? He apologized, he went to jail and is serving out his sentence, he worked on becoming a better person, what are you expecting him to do after the event?
And what should he do? Just go die? He apologized, he went to jail and is serving out his sentence, he worked on becoming a better person, what are you expecting him to do after the event?
I don't expect anything from him. I just think it's funny how society boycotted certain MIT people for hanging around Epstein but a murderer gets top billing on HN.
Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39042626
The post if you want to read it directly: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/b98b29cf-27d9-49e0-b10b-1848399...
[deleted]
[deleted]
They sent that to a LKML and didn't get a single reply to it? Curious.
I think maybe somebody should re-post the request to credit the 3 developers, because that is directly relevant to LKML and may have gotten lost in the middle of all the text.
I think maybe somebody should re-post the request to credit the 3 developers, because that is directly relevant to LKML and may have gotten lost in the middle of all the text.
Some may have been involved in Linux at the time and this raises unhappy memories. Some may consider his action unforgiveable. Some may have butted heads with Hans Reiser in the past and be uninterested in his words because of their personal opinion. Some may be uninterested in the poster (the 8chan founder, not a regular Linux contributor). Some may see themselves as representatives of their employer and worry any response could be a PR risk if it gets interpreted as sympathizing with a murderer, or alternatively kicking a man while he's down.
Also, people may simply not remember him.
We are all the center of our own worlds.
We are all the center of our own worlds.
Would you respond to the unabombers manifesto if he posted it on HN?
I'm not saying you have to like the guy (I don't), but the request for credit was reasonable, and if they did work then they deserve to be credited, even if a horrible person is the one pointing it out.
The unabomber also had a point about modern society, even if his proposed course of action to address them was counter productive and insane.
No one sane I can think of is going to reference the unabomber manifesto in their public policy document proposing fixing any of those problems in an actually sane way, because most folks who would read that are going to automatically assume the person shares values or sympathies with the Unabomber. And the Unabomber was a literal terrorist nut job, even if he was brilliant in some other areas. Which is bad for the writer.
So I’m sure those folks will get some credit, just not in a way that will reference that email and hence draw an association with a convicted murderer who was also a major asshole to most of his co-contributors.
Guilt by association exists, even if irrational and it causes shitty outcomes sometines. If someone has something to lose with their public persona, it’s a good idea to not associate with problematic people because of it.
No one sane I can think of is going to reference the unabomber manifesto in their public policy document proposing fixing any of those problems in an actually sane way, because most folks who would read that are going to automatically assume the person shares values or sympathies with the Unabomber. And the Unabomber was a literal terrorist nut job, even if he was brilliant in some other areas. Which is bad for the writer.
So I’m sure those folks will get some credit, just not in a way that will reference that email and hence draw an association with a convicted murderer who was also a major asshole to most of his co-contributors.
Guilt by association exists, even if irrational and it causes shitty outcomes sometines. If someone has something to lose with their public persona, it’s a good idea to not associate with problematic people because of it.
(re: dead comment 39066268) I'm now very interested in what Reiser would think of the present state of the (semantic) web. (edit: i.e, the thought experiment, realized: transplant someone just a few years in time --- what gradual changes would they uniquely observe?)
I was a bit bemused the other day when I saw a reiserfs update on arch.
Kinda funny, if Mussolini had invented sliced bread, would sandwiches have been a bad idea for decades too?
Kinda funny, if Mussolini had invented sliced bread, would sandwiches have been a bad idea for decades too?
No one seems to have a problem with Volkswagon.
[deleted]
Or rockets, which is mostly the work of the brain behind V2 missiles
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernher_von_Braun
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernher_von_Braun
Or pretty much most big german industrial companies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_involved_in_...
[deleted]
They would if it was called a Hitlerwagon
We probably wouldn't have kept calling it "Mussolini Bread".
Reiserfs has been essentially unmaintained for nearly 20 years because the guy who was the driving force behind the project was too busy first hiding his dead wife's body then serving prison time. It wasn't the association with him that killed it, it was his disappearance from everything.
Why is everybody so fascinated by this? You can be both smart, weird and a sociopath.
I think maybe because it seems paradoxical that someone would work on an open source project, giving away their time for free for the good of society, and yet be selfish to the point of being a murderer.
As an open source developer myself, I don't understand how it's possible. Why would you give away your labor for free if you don't feel empathy towards others?
My general level of empathy for people I don't know has declined significantly over the past decade and my open source contributions have also declined in line with that. I just don't see the point anymore.
I met some very good people through open source but, overall, the experience has taught me that most people on earth range from neutral to horrible.
Open source probably represents the best kind of environment to meet the best of humanity. The smartest of the good people... But it's still disappointing.
As an open source developer myself, I don't understand how it's possible. Why would you give away your labor for free if you don't feel empathy towards others?
My general level of empathy for people I don't know has declined significantly over the past decade and my open source contributions have also declined in line with that. I just don't see the point anymore.
I met some very good people through open source but, overall, the experience has taught me that most people on earth range from neutral to horrible.
Open source probably represents the best kind of environment to meet the best of humanity. The smartest of the good people... But it's still disappointing.
> My general level of empathy for people I don't know has declined significantly over the past decade and my open source contributions have also declined in line with that.
Interestingly, mine has gone up. The more personal faults and failures I see in myself (and the list is extensive), the more empathy I have for other persons' imperfections.
Interestingly, mine has gone up. The more personal faults and failures I see in myself (and the list is extensive), the more empathy I have for other persons' imperfections.
I'm probably becoming more selfish so I guess we'll meet half way. You need to be selfish to survive in this world. I wish I had gone in the other direction. Being too generous with your time sucks bad.
It's not about selflessness or empathy, it's about being unable to control ones emotion.
We all get mad at our spouses, but we don't kill em
We all get mad at our spouses, but we don't kill em
Still weird how someone who can't control their emotions can spend hours sitting calmly in front of a debugger while coding over many years. I feel like developers have exceptional self control compared to most people.
Personally I still feel empathy towards people even when I'm angry at them. If rational people act like complete assholes to me, I start thinking that maybe they were molested or something really nasty must have happened to them.
Personally I still feel empathy towards people even when I'm angry at them. If rational people act like complete assholes to me, I start thinking that maybe they were molested or something really nasty must have happened to them.
> Still weird how someone who can't control their emotions can spend hours sitting calmly in front of a debugger while coding over many years. I feel like developers have exceptional self control compared to most people.
This can just feel stimulating, immersing and captivating, so self control wouldn't be needed in the first place. An Open Source project is likely something that you are naturally very interested in so it makes sense a person would be captivated by that.
I get frustrated when I have to work on projects that I don't care about - e.g. I work on them in order to make money - but I never get frustrated about my own initiatives, side projects, etc.
I don't have problems controlling my emotions otherwise, but I could definitely see someone being captivated by a project enough, but at the same time lose control when talking to people.
And Open Source may not be just empathy, it could just be literal passion for the project and the idea itself.
In the end I think the frustration is caused by external pressure and this feeling of lack of control or ability to influence things. If you are working on your own things, you have enough power to choose the tech and circumstances to not get frustrated.
This can just feel stimulating, immersing and captivating, so self control wouldn't be needed in the first place. An Open Source project is likely something that you are naturally very interested in so it makes sense a person would be captivated by that.
I get frustrated when I have to work on projects that I don't care about - e.g. I work on them in order to make money - but I never get frustrated about my own initiatives, side projects, etc.
I don't have problems controlling my emotions otherwise, but I could definitely see someone being captivated by a project enough, but at the same time lose control when talking to people.
And Open Source may not be just empathy, it could just be literal passion for the project and the idea itself.
In the end I think the frustration is caused by external pressure and this feeling of lack of control or ability to influence things. If you are working on your own things, you have enough power to choose the tech and circumstances to not get frustrated.
The debugger is a relatively simple environment: you have a program, you have inputs, and one of these leads to weird behavior.
When you encounter people, they might be in a bad mood for a thousand reasons you can't know about and that you can't inspect like you can in "computer + program + data", leash out at you (verbally) for no discernable reason at all (and that they themselves may not even be aware of)
When you never learned about that messiness of a system as complex as people, it can feel arbitrary and hostile. If you're the type who needs method and order to feel safe, computers are wonderful, people much less so.
When you encounter people, they might be in a bad mood for a thousand reasons you can't know about and that you can't inspect like you can in "computer + program + data", leash out at you (verbally) for no discernable reason at all (and that they themselves may not even be aware of)
When you never learned about that messiness of a system as complex as people, it can feel arbitrary and hostile. If you're the type who needs method and order to feel safe, computers are wonderful, people much less so.
Additionally, the degree of emotional manipulation and repressed-trauma-triggering things that happen during a bad divorce (or even just a good marriage) with young kids is truly staggering.
It’s frankly more shocking how many people survive it.
It’s frankly more shocking how many people survive it.
> Still weird how someone who can't control their emotions can spend hours sitting calmly in front of a debugger while coding over many years. I feel like developers have exceptional self control compared to most people.
I think spending hours calmly in front of a debugger is the reason programmers become angry at people.
Stress builds up and needs to be released somewhere.
What I learned over time is that it’s better to get angry at the debugger and be nice to people. Not a day goes by without cursing that hecking tool that does whatever the heck it wants again, but I smile at my neighbours and try to help whenever I can. I also use HN as a means to let some of my craziest thoughts run wild, so I wouldnt have to torment those around me with them.
Programmers are humans and humans rely on emotion. Got to control the flow and pressure somehow.
Stress builds up and needs to be released somewhere.
What I learned over time is that it’s better to get angry at the debugger and be nice to people. Not a day goes by without cursing that hecking tool that does whatever the heck it wants again, but I smile at my neighbours and try to help whenever I can. I also use HN as a means to let some of my craziest thoughts run wild, so I wouldnt have to torment those around me with them.
Programmers are humans and humans rely on emotion. Got to control the flow and pressure somehow.
[deleted]
From what I have read many murders happen by "normal" people - no psychopathy or anything is necessary. And a big problem seems to be rigidity in thought.
While I agree that controlling emotions is essential, gracefully dealing with them in the first place is also very important. Emotional outbursts seem like singular events while in reality they are build-ups that happen over long stretches of time. Maybe a more intuitive example is amok runs at schools. Counter-intuitively these are usually done by people who seem calm - cholerics are less likely to do amok runs.
FWIW reading also through the Wikipedia page, there was already a restraining order a year before.
While I agree that controlling emotions is essential, gracefully dealing with them in the first place is also very important. Emotional outbursts seem like singular events while in reality they are build-ups that happen over long stretches of time. Maybe a more intuitive example is amok runs at schools. Counter-intuitively these are usually done by people who seem calm - cholerics are less likely to do amok runs.
FWIW reading also through the Wikipedia page, there was already a restraining order a year before.
> My general level of empathy for people I don't know has declined significantly over the past decade and my open source contributions have also declined in line with that. I just don't see the point anymore.
This kind of cynicism is self-fulfilling, though I’m sure you’re already aware.
Selflessness at its core is doing something for others not expecting anything in return. But I think true selfless acts are rare, because you need motivation to do anything, and “not getting anything in return” is zero motivation. Especially if you filter selfless acts towards family and close friends.
But I think there are still benefits in contributing to open-source and being “selfless” to strangers. Altruism gets others to become less cynical and more selfless themselves, reversing the apathy feedback loop. Open-source in particular also improves your resume and gives you connections, and makes you a better programmer so you do your job which you get paid for faster and easier.
Ultimately, I think the issue is that people need to focus on themselves before they do anything remotely selfless. My impression is that most people help others, but only after they help themselves to whatever their “fulfillment” level is; and while some people never feel fulfilled, most people’s level is relatively sane. Except the current economy and worldview is making a lot of people struggle, and the internet and social media (self-exposure and exposure to others) is making a lot of people guarded.
This kind of cynicism is self-fulfilling, though I’m sure you’re already aware.
Selflessness at its core is doing something for others not expecting anything in return. But I think true selfless acts are rare, because you need motivation to do anything, and “not getting anything in return” is zero motivation. Especially if you filter selfless acts towards family and close friends.
But I think there are still benefits in contributing to open-source and being “selfless” to strangers. Altruism gets others to become less cynical and more selfless themselves, reversing the apathy feedback loop. Open-source in particular also improves your resume and gives you connections, and makes you a better programmer so you do your job which you get paid for faster and easier.
Ultimately, I think the issue is that people need to focus on themselves before they do anything remotely selfless. My impression is that most people help others, but only after they help themselves to whatever their “fulfillment” level is; and while some people never feel fulfilled, most people’s level is relatively sane. Except the current economy and worldview is making a lot of people struggle, and the internet and social media (self-exposure and exposure to others) is making a lot of people guarded.
Empathy for people does not preclude apathy for a person.
Maybe he is, or he could just be a real asshole. For the record I think most killers probably are not sociopaths. This was true 100k years ago, and its probably still true now.
His kids lost their mother.
And he told them that she ran away.
If you are able to do this to your kids you are a special kind of human.
If you are able to do this to your kids you are a special kind of human.
Thats exactly the kind of common assumption im advocating agaisnt. Evil behavior is not unique to sociopaths/psycopaths.
I think because in a way, we are all weird more or less due to the incredibly strange society we live in, and Reiser was one of the few that blew up. So there are two levels of fascination: on one level, we are looking for insights about ourselves in his breakdown, and we also hope that we are different than him, which gives us hope that we can live through this society and not fall apart like he did.
He lied to their kids and told them that their mother had abandoned them.
>
He lied to their kids and told them that their mother had abandoned them.
You think that's the most notable thing out of all the other things he did?
Parents do that all the time to their kids after divorce, there's probably even a Wikipedia page about parental alienation
You think that's the most notable thing out of all the other things he did?
Parents do that all the time to their kids after divorce, there's probably even a Wikipedia page about parental alienation
That he did it after murdering the mother is what makes it particularly galling.
[deleted]
Yes, what Reiser did was horrendous. But that was my point: at the same time, people do such things every day all around us. It's only that Reiser went further and committed murder. It is indeed an horrible act, and the only practical thing to do is lock up muderers, but I also think we should look at society's role in producing people like Reiser as well.
[deleted]
> It's not often you see somebody apologize for killing their wife, explain their coding decisions around balanced trees versus extensible hashing, and suggest that elementary schools offer the same kinds of emotional intelligence curriculum that they've worked through in prison
That last part immediately jumped out to me and made me a bit sad. We have adults walking around with the emotional intelligence of toddlers, because nobody ever thought it might be important to impart that in a systematic way. Did we used to when society worked differently? Maybe, maybe not? I don't know and I'm certainly not one to argue that things used to be better in the old days. But I feel like we're failing our children by not emphasizing emotional intelligence more in schools. We've learned so much in recent decades about how to regulate emotion, how to handle emotional crises, suffering and pain. Schema therapy, DBT and ACT have only really become a widespread thing in the past 2 decades. Did any of us know about cognitive behavioral therapy a decade ago? There is so much we could be doing as a society to improve the mental health of so many people, but we just ... don't.
That last part immediately jumped out to me and made me a bit sad. We have adults walking around with the emotional intelligence of toddlers, because nobody ever thought it might be important to impart that in a systematic way. Did we used to when society worked differently? Maybe, maybe not? I don't know and I'm certainly not one to argue that things used to be better in the old days. But I feel like we're failing our children by not emphasizing emotional intelligence more in schools. We've learned so much in recent decades about how to regulate emotion, how to handle emotional crises, suffering and pain. Schema therapy, DBT and ACT have only really become a widespread thing in the past 2 decades. Did any of us know about cognitive behavioral therapy a decade ago? There is so much we could be doing as a society to improve the mental health of so many people, but we just ... don't.
The sad truth is that a highly marginalized community of traditionally outcasted people realized this first. And now that community is doing the best job of addressing young childrens' emotions.
Unfortunately that group is indoctrining those children to share in that groups' problems by giving those children the same emotional issues at impressionable ages.
Unfortunately that group is indoctrining those children to share in that groups' problems by giving those children the same emotional issues at impressionable ages.
What group would that be?
Not GP but I assume he meant the transgender community (not really the concept of transgender itself, but specifically the contemporary community that tries to reframe the concept of gender identity, such as the idea that gedner is a separate thing from sex, from how it is traditionally thought of).
I feel you are inaccurate, in that schools all focus more on emotional intelligence over any single academic subject matter.
Add up all the required group projects, team stuff, etc and there you have it.
Add up all the required group projects, team stuff, etc and there you have it.
They focus more on it, but in a lord-of-the-flies kind of way. You either get the cues, or you don't in which case, tough luck.
It's the same in other fields, e.g. sports/physical ed often works that way, language and maths as well depending on the teacher. But with none of them, the failure to impart that knowledge increases the risk of murder (as seen here, even though that's an extreme case.)
Edit to add: and in cases like Hans Reiser it's doubly sad because he surely was a smart kid. Sending him off into special "emotional intelligence classes" probably wouldn't have affected his intellectual skills in the slightest (or maybe even in a positive way). But while it's an aspect that most schools try to impart through osmosis, they don't detect when they fail, or even when they notice, there's little they can do about it.
It's the same in other fields, e.g. sports/physical ed often works that way, language and maths as well depending on the teacher. But with none of them, the failure to impart that knowledge increases the risk of murder (as seen here, even though that's an extreme case.)
Edit to add: and in cases like Hans Reiser it's doubly sad because he surely was a smart kid. Sending him off into special "emotional intelligence classes" probably wouldn't have affected his intellectual skills in the slightest (or maybe even in a positive way). But while it's an aspect that most schools try to impart through osmosis, they don't detect when they fail, or even when they notice, there's little they can do about it.
You hit the nail on the head. "git gud" as they say in online games, is not teaching, it's just pushing for competitiveness and survival of the fittest.
Group projects made me resentful because I had to do all the work. The justification was something like "tough luck that's how the real world works". No lessons learned there aside from this feeling that I'm going to get screwed by colleagues.
Instead we should teach kids cognitive empathy and explore applied theory of mind. Do it in an intellectual way. Why do people think differently, what motivates people, how does this motivation lead to events and outcomes in society? It's sort of an intersection of psychology and sociology. If people get skillful at this it helps to reduce how judgemental people can be, which is one of the things the author talked about. You could tie it in with teaching kids about CBT. Teach kids to analyze their own thoughts and assumptions about themselves, others, and the world they're in.
Instead we should teach kids cognitive empathy and explore applied theory of mind. Do it in an intellectual way. Why do people think differently, what motivates people, how does this motivation lead to events and outcomes in society? It's sort of an intersection of psychology and sociology. If people get skillful at this it helps to reduce how judgemental people can be, which is one of the things the author talked about. You could tie it in with teaching kids about CBT. Teach kids to analyze their own thoughts and assumptions about themselves, others, and the world they're in.
I don't know how you can look at the current discourse about anything and say that it's working. People are growing up not learning how to handle their emotions and we're seeing the consequences of that every day.
The other comment hits the nail on the head perfectly with referencing lord of the flies.
The other comment hits the nail on the head perfectly with referencing lord of the flies.
For people of a certain age, all the education about these things that worked was delivered almost unintentionally, and all the attempts to impart it deliberately were ridiculous.
Your parents read to you, and you developed a love of books? Probably you know pretty well how to imagine another person's emotions in a hypothetical situation. And that different characters could feel very differently about otherwise-similar situations. You can probably name three to five different ways a person might feel about, say, having their work usurped.
On the other hand, a decade or two ago attempts to teach this sort of thing used exercises like dividing people into four quadrants, named things like 'plants' and 'stars' as if the very idea that different people are different was a shocking revelation they needed to spend several weeks introducing.
Perhaps our techniques for teaching this stuff have improved in the past few years? The way it used to be taught was something of a waste of time.
Your parents read to you, and you developed a love of books? Probably you know pretty well how to imagine another person's emotions in a hypothetical situation. And that different characters could feel very differently about otherwise-similar situations. You can probably name three to five different ways a person might feel about, say, having their work usurped.
On the other hand, a decade or two ago attempts to teach this sort of thing used exercises like dividing people into four quadrants, named things like 'plants' and 'stars' as if the very idea that different people are different was a shocking revelation they needed to spend several weeks introducing.
Perhaps our techniques for teaching this stuff have improved in the past few years? The way it used to be taught was something of a waste of time.
> I don't know how you can look at the current discourse about anything and say that it's working.
I didn't say it's working, I said that they focus on it more than you think.
I didn't say it's working, I said that they focus on it more than you think.
I think there are national differences here, schools around the world can be quite different from each other.
I only managed to read this in full a bit after the other thread was posted.
Lots of interesting aspects to it, but one that stands out to me is how he is an example of an engineer who didn’t realise the importance of people skills.
I quite often see software developers who have an almost antagonistic attitude towards business, users and sometimes colleagues because they feel that their project failing to succeed is other people’s fault: “business didn’t give me the right requirements”, “users didn’t use the software in the correct way”, “all the other software developers are useless”.
This attitude may not get in the way of small scale solo projects, but for any non trivial sized project, it’s going to work very badly.
Significant sized projects require collaboration, you need to work well with others which may require compromise. Assuming that your organisation is not dysfunctional, it’s not unusual that requirements aren’t initially 100% clear, this is why software development is often an iterative process.
The most valuable software developers know how to work with others towards the common goal of making excellent software and the process can sometimes seem messy due having to work with many different kinds of people, but that’s the skill you need to rise above being a merely great coder, but one who can’t really work with a team.
Lots of interesting aspects to it, but one that stands out to me is how he is an example of an engineer who didn’t realise the importance of people skills.
I quite often see software developers who have an almost antagonistic attitude towards business, users and sometimes colleagues because they feel that their project failing to succeed is other people’s fault: “business didn’t give me the right requirements”, “users didn’t use the software in the correct way”, “all the other software developers are useless”.
This attitude may not get in the way of small scale solo projects, but for any non trivial sized project, it’s going to work very badly.
Significant sized projects require collaboration, you need to work well with others which may require compromise. Assuming that your organisation is not dysfunctional, it’s not unusual that requirements aren’t initially 100% clear, this is why software development is often an iterative process.
The most valuable software developers know how to work with others towards the common goal of making excellent software and the process can sometimes seem messy due having to work with many different kinds of people, but that’s the skill you need to rise above being a merely great coder, but one who can’t really work with a team.
I've seen similar sentiment as well. It's difficult to blame people as I am certain individual experiences dictate how they feel about business. Software engineering in particular feels like something that is just fundamentally misunderstood by most people. If I looked out and saw a half constructed building I would not tell customers that it is almost done. Most people can grasp that a building needs materials sourced from many vendors, some people working on certain aspects (plumber, carpenter, framer, etc), but for some reason they just look at software and are convinced it is a lack of resolve or dedication or something.
I blame the popular notion of hacking together Facebook over a long weekend or similar. There is usually a lack of respect and clear communication at the heart of negative feelings. I attempt to properly level set expectations so there is even room for the soft skills you identified. It's hard to deploy them when the business has a fundamental misunderstanding and antagonism towards development.
I blame the popular notion of hacking together Facebook over a long weekend or similar. There is usually a lack of respect and clear communication at the heart of negative feelings. I attempt to properly level set expectations so there is even room for the soft skills you identified. It's hard to deploy them when the business has a fundamental misunderstanding and antagonism towards development.
I've done a bit of thinking about Mr. Reiser and after reading the message to the mailing list and the like I'm thinking he sounds remorseful but also even if he wasn't the debt he owes society is being paid by his incarceration and I do nothing worthwile to pile on and re-punish him for his crimes.
The same goes for my comments about Stallman; I don't care for the man and probably wouldn't hang out with him or entertain his ideas but there's no denying his contributions to open source and the gnu set of things. His relevance now is basically zero and so is Hans's but I don't need to flog either of them anytime their names come up.
So my previous comments I apologize for (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39042626&p=2#39045093).
I don't know enough about filesystems or what was maybe planned for v4 v5 and beyond for reiserfs but I am glad we have some really nice filesystems in Linux. I'm stoked to see what I can do with bcachefs and am quite happy with xfs and zfs on my systems.
The same goes for my comments about Stallman; I don't care for the man and probably wouldn't hang out with him or entertain his ideas but there's no denying his contributions to open source and the gnu set of things. His relevance now is basically zero and so is Hans's but I don't need to flog either of them anytime their names come up.
So my previous comments I apologize for (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39042626&p=2#39045093).
I don't know enough about filesystems or what was maybe planned for v4 v5 and beyond for reiserfs but I am glad we have some really nice filesystems in Linux. I'm stoked to see what I can do with bcachefs and am quite happy with xfs and zfs on my systems.
Reiser is a convicted murderer. Stallman is a non-convicted non-criminal. I'm surprised seeing them discussed as 2 somewhat similar cases
> entertain his ideas
Any of them or just a specific small subset?
Any of them or just a specific small subset?
I think he’s a bit extreme about proprietary software.
I don’t think Stallman is irrelevant. He’s still in charge of the GNU stuff, he still blocks progress on GCC, he still has donors and an audience, he’s still a pedophilia apologist.
Edit: https://www.vice.com/en/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-scient...
https://selamjie.medium.com/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec21...
Edit: https://www.vice.com/en/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-scient...
https://selamjie.medium.com/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec21...
Maybe if he became irrelevant and we moved on we could find someone that could champion all the benefits of GNU without the Stallman baggage.
I promote Free Software (GPL licensed) over Open Source often, and it seems there is a lot of opposition even in places like HN. Some of that might be RMS issues, but I think it's something else. I used to think it's a lack of understanding, but BSD/MIT license folks do understand the differences in many cases. It's a difference in what or whom they care more about. I think there's a bit of contradiction in their thinking though, but maybe they see it as more philosophical and not practical? IDK, but it seems weird how many people are against FSF.
Personally, I think we should stop looking for sinless saviors, and embrace good ideas regardless of their origin.
Hard to do. We are humans seeking tribes. If Linus was some unsavory alt right guy with extreme beliefs I’d not align myself with the project he created.
Also Stallman is so polarizing and creepy imo that it hurts furthering his ideas of free software. Imagine he took a more mainstream inclusive approach he’d go further.
Also Stallman is so polarizing and creepy imo that it hurts furthering his ideas of free software. Imagine he took a more mainstream inclusive approach he’d go further.
You're right, it is hard to do. But a little compassion and empathy goes a long way. Publically calling someone polarizing and creepy might feel good, but it is hurtful and unhelpful.
> hurtful
Listen, the man publicly defended Epstein's system of coercion and claimed that his victims were "willing". If you seriously think it's the people pointing that out who are the ones lacking empathy and behaving "hurtfully", there's something very broken with your moral compass.
Listen, the man publicly defended Epstein's system of coercion and claimed that his victims were "willing". If you seriously think it's the people pointing that out who are the ones lacking empathy and behaving "hurtfully", there's something very broken with your moral compass.
Listen, the man did no such thing. It's always the intolerant ones charging others with lacking empathy and broken moral compasses.
> If you seriously think it's the people pointing that out who are the ones lacking empathy and behaving "hurtfully",
I do seriously believe that, and my moral compass is intact.
Empathy is easy to give, for those you understand and identify with. It is more difficult to show empathy and compassion for people with whom you disagree, and don't fully understand.
There's every reason to believe that whatever Stallman's statements were, they don't represent the totality of the man, or mean that he's evil to the core. His humanity remains, and can be safely acknowledged, without meaning you agree or support with everything he's done.
I do seriously believe that, and my moral compass is intact.
Empathy is easy to give, for those you understand and identify with. It is more difficult to show empathy and compassion for people with whom you disagree, and don't fully understand.
There's every reason to believe that whatever Stallman's statements were, they don't represent the totality of the man, or mean that he's evil to the core. His humanity remains, and can be safely acknowledged, without meaning you agree or support with everything he's done.
Right after Reiser got convicted, ext4 came out and replaced reiserfs in the recommendation list. I always thought that this was a strange coincidence.
This is why I always say the best software developers are the ones who work well with others and have a low KDR IRL.
Very strange to see Brennan (hotwheels) come up in this context. He always struck me as a tragic figure.
Wow, I didn't notice this when I read the beginning of Reisers letter in the previous submission.
Her name was Nina Sharanova
I read the Wikipedia article about the crime and I found it surprising he got convicted as it seemed like they didn't have any actual evidence against him. Could anyone who's familiar with the case shed some light as to why the jury found him guilty?
We do know that he did do it, I am just curious as to how it was proven.
We do know that he did do it, I am just curious as to how it was proven.
He admitted to it and showed the police where he hid the body as part of a plea bargain.
Remember that this man strangled a woman to death, the mother of his children.
Many of us suffer with social skills but we don't murder people for it.