明大LINUX事件的反思(6)全部满足;撤稿,信息大公开

作者:oneweek  于 2021-5-1 21:54 发表于 最热闹的华人社交网络--贝壳村

通用分类:热点杂谈

https://lwn.net/Articles/854775/
卢老师网页上贴出了撤稿信和各项信息的详情 https://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~kjlu/


【思考题: 这些问题我思考了很久。 有很多想法。

1. 认错: 在想,彻底认错,去年认错, 死不认错的结果

卢老师现在公开认错信写得非常彻底(也是我的风格, 国内小时候一点屁事,就写我辜负了毛主席 祖国人民 老师 父母 同学们的期望,毛主席对我哪有什么狗屁期望呀), 这个对系领导特别有利, 他们已经装做最近才知道此事。古代中东的故事, 找一只好羊羔,让它背上所有的罪过, 然后放它自由到荒野。 系主任到此, 要长出一口气。 

去年大家都不高兴, 私下沟通,把过节彻底消除会不会更好? 如果不打算消除,不吃他这一套,怎么任由小P发些烂补丁,不仔细审查?GREG说,想封杀有一阵子了,想睡觉,就等小P送枕头

如果就是死不认错, 结果会如何(IRB如果事前同意,或觉得他们没错)

2. 甩锅: 在想,卢老师甩锅,可以甩向哪里

以前,一直甩向伦理道德审查委员会(IRB), 我前面说了, 他们反手扣锅轻而易举, 说你虚报,瞒报,谎报就可以了。 卢老师这种事后取得IRB的同意, 锅甩不过去了。但是如果事前取得同意,坚持实验对象是个程序不是人,是不是能顶得住?

看像小吴的人发了帖子, 要事先取得IRB的同意,什么事情也干不成,等他们批准,黄花菜都凉了。 这类心态不可取,如果不改变,将来自己要成背锅大侠

3. 职业帮助

我以前一直认为自己什么都会写,直到吃亏有了教训。 卢老师这些信自己写的,个人觉得如果花几千,请律师处理,应该不会如此一退千里。写成这个样子,把自己彻底放到了系主任手里。他要保,那样最好。他要你背锅,证据都是你写的。

-----------------------------------------Linux 社区发现以前提交的190个都是好意提交-----------------
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...
------------------------------------更全面的回顾------------------------------


高兴

感动

同情

搞笑

难过

拍砖

支持

鲜花

评论 (0 个评论)

facelist doodle 涂鸦板

您需要登录后才可以评论 登录 | 注册

关于本站 | 隐私政策 | 免责条款 | 版权声明 | 联络我们 | 刊登广告 | 转手机版 | APP下载

Copyright © 2001-2013 海外华人中文门户:倍可亲 (http://www.backchina.com) All Rights Reserved.

程序系统基于 Discuz! X3.1 商业版 优化 Discuz! © 2001-2013 Comsenz Inc. 更新:GMT+8, 2021-5-2 01:36

倍可亲服务器位于美国圣何塞、西雅图和达拉斯顶级数据中心,为更好服务全球网友特统一使用京港台时间

返回顶部