倍可親

明大LINUX事件的反思(6)全部滿足;撤稿,信息大公開

作者:oneweek  於 2021-5-1 21:54 發表於 最熱鬧的華人社交網路--貝殼村

通用分類:熱點雜談

https://lwn.net/Articles/854775/
盧老師網頁上貼出了撤稿信和各項信息的詳情 https://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~kjlu/


【思考題: 這些問題我思考了很久。 有很多想法。

1. 認錯: 在想,徹底認錯,去年認錯, 死不認錯的結果

盧老師現在公開認錯信寫得非常徹底(也是我的風格, 國內小時候一點屁事,就寫我辜負了毛主席 祖國人民 老師 父母 同學們的期望,毛主席對我哪有什麼狗屁期望呀), 這個對系領導特別有利, 他們已經裝做最近才知道此事。古代中東的故事, 找一隻好羊羔,讓它背上所有的罪過, 然後放它自由到荒野。 系主任到此, 要長出一口氣。 

去年大家都不高興, 私下溝通,把過節徹底消除會不會更好? 如果不打算消除,不吃他這一套,怎麼任由小P發些爛補丁,不仔細審查?GREG說,想封殺有一陣子了,想睡覺,就等小P送枕頭

如果就是死不認錯, 結果會如何(IRB如果事前同意,或覺得他們沒錯)

2. 甩鍋: 在想,盧老師甩鍋,可以甩向哪裡

以前,一直甩向倫理道德審查委員會(IRB), 我前面說了, 他們反手扣鍋輕而易舉, 說你虛報,瞞報,謊報就可以了。 盧老師這種事後取得IRB的同意, 鍋甩不過去了。但是如果事前取得同意,堅持實驗對象是個程序不是人,是不是能頂得住?

看像小吳的人發了帖子, 要事先取得IRB的同意,什麼事情也幹不成,等他們批准,黃花菜都涼了。 這類心態不可取,如果不改變,將來自己要成背鍋大俠

3. 職業幫助

我以前一直認為自己什麼都會寫,直到吃虧有了教訓。 盧老師這些信自己寫的,個人覺得如果花幾千,請律師處理,應該不會如此一退千里。寫成這個樣子,把自己徹底放到了系主任手裡。他要保,那樣最好。他要你背鍋,證據都是你寫的。

-----------------------------------------Linux 社區發現以前提交的190個都是好意提交-----------------
https://linux.slashdot.org/story/21/04/29/1629240/linux-stops-reverting-most-university-of-minnesota-patches-admits-good-faith?utm_source=rss1.0mainlinkanon&utm_medium=feed
destinyland writes:
LWN has a terrific update what's happened since the discovery of University of Minnesota researchers intentionally submitting buggy code to the Linux kernel:

The writing of a paper on this research [PDF] was not the immediate cause of the recent events; instead, it was the posting of a buggy patch originating from an experimental static-analysis tool run by another developer at UMN. That led developers in the kernel community to suspect that the effort to submit intentionally malicious patches was still ongoing. Since then, it has become apparent that this is not the case, but by the time the full story became clear, the discussion was already running at full speed.

The old saying still holds true: one should not attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence.

On April 22, a brief statement was issued by the Linux Foundation technical advisory board (TAB) stating that, among other things, the recent patches appeared to have been submitted in good faith.

Meanwhile, the Linux Foundation and the TAB sent a letter to the UMN researchers outlining how the situation should be addressed; that letter has not been publicly posted, but ZDNet apparently got a copy from somewhere. Among other things, the letter asked for a complete disclosure of the buggy patches sent as part of the UMN project and the withdrawal of the paper resulting from this work.

In response, the UMN researchers posted an open letter apologizing to the community, followed a few days later by a summary of the work they did [PDF] as part of the "hypocrite commits" project. Five patches were submitted overall from two sock-puppet accounts, but one of those was an ordinary bug fix that was sent from the wrong account by mistake. Of the remaining four, one of them was an attempt to insert a bug that was, itself, buggy, so the patch was actually valid; the other three (123) contained real bugs. None of those three were accepted by maintainers, though the reasons for rejection were not always the bugs in question.

The paper itself has been withdrawn and will not be presented in May as was planned...

One of the first things that happened when this whole affair exploded was the posting by Greg Kroah-Hartman of a 190-part patch series reverting as many patches from UMN as he could find... As it happens, these "easy reverts" also needed manual review; once the initial anger passed there was little desire to revert patches that were not actually buggy. That review process has been ongoing over the course of the last week and has involved the efforts of a number of developers. Most of the suspect patches have turned out to be acceptable, if not great, and have been removed from the revert list; if your editor's count is correct, 42 patches are still set to be pulled out of the kernel...

A look at the full set of UMN patches reinforces some early impressions, though. First is that almost all of them do address some sort of real (if obscure and hard to hit) problem...
------------------------------------更全面的回顧------------------------------


高興

感動

同情

搞笑

難過

拍磚

支持

鮮花

評論 (0 個評論)

facelist doodle 塗鴉板

您需要登錄后才可以評論 登錄 | 註冊

關於本站 | 隱私權政策 | 免責條款 | 版權聲明 | 聯絡我們

Copyright © 2001-2013 海外華人中文門戶:倍可親 (http://big5.backchina.com) All Rights Reserved.

程序系統基於 Discuz! X3.1 商業版 優化 Discuz! © 2001-2013 Comsenz Inc.

本站時間採用京港台時間 GMT+8, 2024-2-27 11:26

返回頂部