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

Groups > comp.os.linux.development.apps > #676

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

Show all headers | View raw

On 03/29/2014 05:17 AM, crankypuss wrote:
> 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?

That nobody is interested seems revelatory.

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