Comment by noxer
4 years ago
Someone does voluntary work and people think that gives them some ethical privilege to be asked before someone puts their work to the test? Sure it would be nice to ask but at the same time it renders the testing useless. They wanted to see how the review goes if they aren't aware that someone is testing them. You cant do this with consent.
The wasting time argument is nonsense too its not like they did this thousands of times and beside that, reviewing a intentional bad code is not wasting time is just as productive as reviewing "good" code and together with the patch-patch it should be even more valuable work. It not only or adds a patch it also make the reviewer better.
Yeah it aint fun if people trick you or point out you did not succeed in what you tried to do. But instead of playing the victim an play the unethical human experiment card maybe focus on improving.
> They wanted to see how the review goes if they aren't aware that someone is testing them. You cant do this with consent.
Ridiculous. Does the same apply to pentesting a bank or a government agency. If you wanted to pentest these of course you'd get approval from an executive that has power to sanction this. Why would Linux development be an exception? Just ask GKH or someone to allow you to do this.
Ridiculous comparison indeed. There was no pen testing going on. Submitted code does not attack or harming any running system and whoever uses is does so completely voluntary. I dont need anyone's approval for that. The license already states that I'm not liable in any way for what you do with it.
It's just a prank bro!
Or you could cease to do the voluntary work for them, because they clearly are not contributing to your goals. This is what the kernel maintainers have chosen and they have just as much right to do so. And you can perfectly well do this with consent, there's a wealth of knowledge from psychology and sociology on how you can run tests on people with consent and without invalidating the test.
I never said they can not stop reviewing the code. They can do whatever the heck they want. I'm not gonna tell a volunteer what they can and can not do. They just as much dont need anyone's consent to ignore submits as thous who submitting dont need their consent. Its voluntary, if you dont see a benefit you are free to stop, not free to tell other volunteers what to do and not to do.
A far better approach would be to study patch submissions and see how many bugs were introduced by the result of those patches being accepted and applied, without any interference of any kind.
Problem with that is it's a lot of work and they didn't want to do it in the first place.
Exactly, they are just seem mad and blame other for "wrong doings" instead of acknowledging that they need to improve.
You misunderstood me. I said the ones who tried to "see if the bugs would be detected or not in new submitted patches" are the lazy ones who instead of analyzing the existing code and existing bugs, attempted to submit new ones. Actually working on analyzing existing data would require more work than they were willing to do for their paper.
3 replies →
Agreed, in fact the review process worked and now they are going to ban all contributions from that university, as it should be. I think it all worked out perfectly
Pathetic, it did not work at all, they told em whenever they missed a planted bug.
> Someone does voluntary work and people think that gives them some ethical privilege to be asked before someone puts their work to the test?
Yes. Someone sees the work provided to the community for free and thinks that gives them some ethical privilege to put that work to the test?
I have no clue what you try to say, sorry.