Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.development.apps > #672

FOSS and development philosophy; was "Linux O_NONBLOCK bug/ quirk"

Show all headers | View raw

On 03/28/2014 06:45 AM, Rainer Weikusat wrote:> crankypuss 
<crankypuss@nomail.invalid> writes:
 >> On 03/27/2014 09:26 AM, Rainer Weikusat wrote:
 >>> As part of one of the usual 'pleasant exchanges' with the people whose
 >>> ability to make a living depends on controlling access to the Linux 
code
 >>> base, it came to light that a receive operation on a socket in
 >>> non-blocking mode can actually be blocked forever on Linux,
 >
 > [example of a non-blocking read being 'frozen out' by a prior 
blocking one]
 >
 > [...]
 >
 >> So it goes.
 >
 > Indeed. Software has bugs or 'unexpected features' in 'rarely used
 > corners' all the time.

Yes, bad software does, good software not so much because it is 
exhaustively tested via regression suites.  The add-a-kludge philosophy 
does not much admit the concept of regression suites.  Old software is 
usually bad software; feature-creep breeds add-a-kludge.  We end up 
seeing the "unix philosophy" of keeping things simple, tidy, reusable, 
do-one-thing-well, contorted into a mess because of feature-creep and 
add-a-kludge; one easy example of this is the fact that the 'find' 
command goes beyond finding files to performing "actions" on them, and 
it is far from the only available example.

That isn't to say that I'm entirely innocent myself, the ease of adding 
one little option to do something a bit different rather than building 
something new is definitely seductive.  The tools we have to work with 
don't make it easy to see that the code which exists is not doing quite 
what we think if viewed in the abstract, that what we really wanted to 
begin with was something a bit different.  The Unix-world's tendency to 
parse human-readable command output just makes it worse, not to mention 
the fantasy some call "waterfall development" which offers the delusion 
that we can actually define our programs in advance and then implement 
them as imagined.

In real life the very first bug-fix has converted what we thought was 
waterfall development into iterative development.  We are actually 
engaging in a process of reverse-engineering every time we choose 
whether to add another option, or convert the previous functionality 
into two or more new functions.  People are lazy, the tools fight 
against us, usage fights against us.  It's messed up but it can't be 
fixed overnight, especially when "nobody" is working toward it.

The FOSS philosophy also seems to work against us, because we need to 
eat food and sleep somewhere warm; unfunded FOSS development has a tough 
row to hoe, while funded FOSS development is only as free as management 
allows it to be.

 >> The question of how these people allegedly control access
 >> to the linux codebase is fascinating.
 >
 > Google "old boys network".
 >

I know very well what an old-boys' network is, but I don't see how that 
allows anyone to control access to the linux codebase.

Although I've been involved with software since 1969, professionally 
from 1972-2000, it's only within about the past 18 months that I've had 
any involvement with linux.  I've been building software on my own since 
I figured out that I was "retired" rather than simply "unemployed", and 
lately the question of if/how to distribute some of it has come to the fore.

I feel that the GPL puts undue resource requirements on the developer, 
one has to "make the source code available" or some such business.  The 
question of how to start a project that others can participate in 
modifying has led me to shrug mentally, thinking that perhaps the best 
way to "leave something behind" is simply to throw it into the "public 
domain" and let the chips fall.

To hear that an old-boys' network controls access to the linux codebase 
gives me significant curiosity as to just how that can happen.  Isn't it 
in direct opposition to the whole FOSS philosophy?

All I can assume without some further explanation is that the old-boys' 
network is comprised of those who decide what modifications will be 
included in the mainline "product".  I'm largely ignorant of the version 
control mechanisms in common use, but isn't it possible to "fork" a 
project and begin new development independent of the old-boys' network? 
  I suppose that would merely create a new and different old-boys' network?

Back to comp.os.linux.development.apps | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

FOSS and development philosophy; was "Linux O_NONBLOCK bug/ quirk" crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> - 2014-03-29 05:17 -0600
  Re: FOSS and development philosophy; was "Linux O_NONBLOCK bug/ quirk" crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> - 2014-04-02 04:11 -0600
    Re: FOSS and development philosophy; was "Linux O_NONBLOCK bug/ quirk" Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mobileactivedefense.com> - 2014-04-02 12:57 +0100
      Re: FOSS and development philosophy; was "Linux O_NONBLOCK bug/ quirk" crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> - 2014-04-03 03:15 -0600
        Re: FOSS and development philosophy; was "Linux O_NONBLOCK bug/ quirk" Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mobileactivedefense.com> - 2014-04-04 16:46 +0100
          Re: FOSS and development philosophy; was "Linux O_NONBLOCK bug/ quirk" crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> - 2014-04-05 04:10 -0600
            Re: FOSS and development philosophy; was "Linux O_NONBLOCK bug/ quirk" Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mobileactivedefense.com> - 2014-04-05 15:53 +0100
              Re: FOSS and development philosophy; was "Linux O_NONBLOCK bug/ quirk" crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> - 2014-04-06 03:21 -0600

csiph-web