Linus Torvalds pens vintage 'f*cking' rant at kernel dev's 'utter BS'

Re: Big egos make bad code.

I could've meant 1,000Kg.

I could've meant 2,204.6lbs.

I could've meant 1.10 short tons

I could've meant 0.984 long tons.

I could have also meant 1,016Kg if speaking about ton.

I could've also meant 907Kg if speaking about ton to our North American friends.

But, hopefully, you'll still be able to get the idea that I meant he got a metric shit ton of instances.

Re: Big egos make bad code.

@Sil: The world already has far too many delicate little flowers in it whose parents convinced them over the years that "mummy's little soldier is special" and that they can do no wrong. I suffer this crap daily having to deal with clueless tits that just will not accept that they don't have a fucking scooby what they are doing. They are productivity detractors.

The man is trying to get shit done and doesn't suffer fools gladly. I have no problem with this. I feel the world would be a better place if there was less tolerance of whiny little twats not more.

Re: Counter argument

Ken,

Do you think that ranting at a coder about his or her bad code will make him a better coder?

If that works maybe you should tell teachers about your new teaching method.

Re: As I've said before ...

I do take exception to Linus' approach to handling anything he deems to be critical of his work. That smacks of a God complex and that rarely works out well for anybody.

I look forward to a comparison between the Linux kernel overseen by a man with a God complex and a rival one that is "designed by committee". That never works out well.

@bombastic bob - Re: As I've said before ...

I wouldn't dismiss the RedHat trying to steal Linux. It is always good when you can lock-in customers and get rid of competition.

Re: As I've said before ...

@frobnicate,

I think you're missing the point. Crashes are good, they're Rust's way of pointing out bugs in your code. C is nasty because unless you do something spectacular to cause a segment fault or similar, your code will run quite happily causing mayhem that you might learn abroad during development, or you might not.

Rust itself is still evolving, but is a very good systems language. It's pretty hard to code for, because it doesn't let you get away with mistakes. That's its strength. You write junk code, you're going to be told all about it straight away.

Unlike C, where bugs lie dormant for decades undiscovered.

If ISO standardises Rust, it will become the language of choice for low level stuff like kernels.

I'm a long time C programmer, I love it to bits, but Rust is the writing on the wall. The speed with which Redox has gone from nothing to a running desktop is hugely impressive. The fact that they could bash out a whole new kernel very quickly, and apparently it's pretty bomb proof already, shows that it's a language where you can concentrate on ideas instead of worrying about memory all the time.

Large C projects like Linux will be seen as just too demanding of resources. There's a lot of people spending a lot of time chasing down problems in Linux that simply don't exist if Rust was used instead.

Re: As I've said before ...

"As long as it works, and has equal performance, and doesn't change the userspace interface."

Linus isn't the only one who'd heave a sigh of relief. Some of those decisions made a long time ago when we were younger, more foolish and had less grey hair seem less smart with 20+ years of hindsight. kernel NFS in particular must die.

Re: I think I'd be less than delighted

@Jamie Jones: Dude, you're sounding like a condescending twat.