Re: [linux-dvb] Re: Critical points about kernel 2.6.21 and pseudo-authorities

Markus Rechberger
2007-04-30T11:48:40Z

On 4/30/07, Uwe Bugla <uwe.bugla@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> -------- Original-Nachricht --------
> Datum: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 02:58:33 +0200
> Von: hermann pitton <hermann-pitton@arcor.de>
> An: Uwe Bugla <uwe.bugla@gmx.de>
> CC: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>, mkruky@linuxtv.org,
> akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-dvb@linuxtv.org,
> linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Betreff: Re: [linux-dvb] Re: Critical points about kernel 2.6.21
> and pseudo-authorities
>
> > Am Montag, den 30.04.2007, 01:00 +0200 schrieb Uwe Bugla:
> > > -------- Original-Nachricht --------
> > > Datum: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 14:19:22 -0700 (PDT)
> > > Von: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
> > > An: Uwe Bugla <uwe.bugla@gmx.de>
> > > CC: linux-dvb@linuxtv.org, mkruky@linuxtv.org, mchehab@infradead.org,
> > linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org
> > > Betreff: Re: Critical points about kernel 2.6.21 and pseudo-authorities
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, 29 Apr 2007, Uwe Bugla wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I have been trying diff and other tools in various variants (except
> > > > > git-bisect that I cannot handle because I do not understand the
> > practice
> > > > > of it).
> > > >
> > > > git bisect is _really_ simple if you already have a git tree anyway.
> > And
> > > > even if you don't, getting one isn't really hard either. Just do
> > > >
> > > > git clone
> > > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git
> > linux-2.6
> > > >
> > > > and you have a tree (it will take a little while - it's going to
> > dowload
> > > > about 170MB or so of stuff, so the initial clone is going to be a bit
> > > > painful unless you have a fast internet connection).
> > > >
> > > > Once you have the git tree, assuming that 2.6.21-rc7 worked for you,
> > it's
> > > > really as easy as just saying
> > > >
> > > > git bisect start
> > > > git bisect good v2.6.21-rc7
> > > > git bisect bad v2.6.21
> > > >
> > > > and git will think for a short while (most of the time is going to be
> > > > checking out the new tree) and give you a tree to test.
> > > >
> > > > Just build, boot, and test that tree.
> > > >
> > > > If it was fine, do
> > > >
> > > > git bisect good
> > > >
> > > > and git will pick a new tree to test. And if it wasn't, instead just
> > do
> > > > "git bisect bad", and git will pick _another_ version to test. Do this
> > a
> > > > few times, and git will tell you which commit introduced them.
> > > >
> > > > There were just 125 commits in between 2.6.21-rc7 and the final one,
> > so it
> > > > should be quite quick - bisection basically does a binary search, so
> > doing
> > > > seven reboots should have you with the result.
> > > >
> > > > The fact that it already works in 2.6.21-git2 obviously means that _I_
> > end
> > > > up being less interested, but the -stable tree people would love to
> > hear
> > > > what broke!
> > >
> > > Hi again Linus,
> > > my deep thanks for your excellent explication of git-bisect.
> > > But I unfortunately owe a 100Kbit flatrate, and so downloading some 170
> > MB git tree will need the time amount of one entire night (11.5 kb /s if I
> > am lucky - no more).
> > > Just to take up a different approach:
> > >
> > > The difference between 2.6.21-rc7 and 2.6.21 official does not play any
> > role at all.
> > >
> > > On the other hand I found out that:
> > > 2.6.21-rc7 made my AMD K7 router work fine
> > > 2.6.21 official hung my AMD K7 router up
> > > 2.6.21-git1 hung my AMD K7 router up
> > > 2.6.21-git2 made my AMD K7 router work.
> > >
> > > In so far the diff between 2.6.21-git1 and 2.6.21-git2 obviously solves
> > the problem.
> > > Or am I saying something wrong as far as logical terms are concerned?
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > I like small and effective kernels instead of blown up RAM waste.
> > > > > This is no Windoze, man, this is Linux!
> > > >
> > > > Yes. But if you cannot be polite and *RESPECTFUL*, you won't get
> > anywhere
> > > > at all.
> > > >
> > > > This is Linux, not Windows. But that also means that those developers
> > that
> > > > you denigrate aren't getting paid by you, and if you don't show them
> > > > respect, they'll totally ignore you.
> > > >
> > > > Linus
> > >
> > > Now this is the old problem about it all: the hypocricy factor, the
> > utmost small, if not to say pre-pubertarian character plus some other
> obviously
> > counter-productive character traits in those so-called "maintainers" who
> > behave like kids, but not like grown-ups at all!
> > > Not only you, but also Andrew perfectly and willingly step into the
> > hypocritic trap and do not even feel that they are trapped!
> > >
> > > For the majority of all cases of the so-called "maintainer personnel" at
> > linuxtv.org the statement of some missing "politeness" or some missing
> > "respect" is nothing but an utmost dumb, kiddish, human mediocre and
> utmost
> > stupid and utmost hypocritic excuse for bare naked incompatibility,
> dumbness,
> > wrong solidarity, kiddishness and technical incompetence.
> > >
> > > They are building up pseudo-authorities to hide their lack of
> > competence, no matter if their lack of competence funds on technical or
> human lacks.
> > > And at least the Brazilian Mauro Carvalho Chehab does go even so far to
> > soap in Andrew Morton's face with this enourmous threat of incompetence,
> > kiddishness, incompatibility, hypocricy, lies, stigmatisations,
> stubbornness,
> > lack of experience, pre-pubertarian behaviour, fascistoid opinion
> > dictatorship as part of a deep immature anti-democratic and reactionary
> personality
> > structure.
> > >
> > > Would you call Mauro Carvalho Chehab a maintainer!
> > > I can certify you that I cannot, even if I try. And I want him to be
> > substituted as quick as possible as he is the biggest mismatch of
> gatekeeper
> > one can ever imagine.
> > >
> > > And it is not only me personally perceiving this that there are people
> > missing who can go upright and offer sophisticated and good work.
> > > Plus a real sophisticated discussion behaviour, in technical and in
> > human terms.
> > > Going upright is thus far away from the behaviour NOT to be able to
> > tolerate any criticism at all.
> > >
> > > Solution: This whole new quite young linuxtv.org team is missing a real
> > grown up and experienced team leader. Not only that is definitely too much
> > for Mauro Carvalho Chehab. That is the pain - the consistence of the whole
> > group is the pain, that's all. Too young, too many lacks of human skills,
> > and missing an appropriate team leader.............
> > >
> > > So, if I show respect or not, or if I show politeness or not will never
> > change the whole structural situation at all, as great parts of the whole
> > team is a disease:
> > > 1. By Chehab being the team leader the whole fish stinks from the head
> > startup.
> > > Solution: Substitution of Mauro Carvalho Chehab as quick as possible -
> > even quicker than a storm!
> > > 2. By Krufky being one part of it, doing good work, but executing wrong
> > solidarities by his bowing behaviour towards pseudo-authorities although
> he
> > knows better at least technically this is a question of wrong or right
> > leadership, nothing else
> > > 3. By Abraham offering us great ranting aims that never are being put
> > into practice out of certified missing human skills and missing technical
> > knowledge (the four completely unusable 2.6 kernels were never apologized
> by
> > himself) urgent substitution is utmost necessary.
> > >
> > > CLEARER: If anyone of the people knowing the deeper context claims those
> > "gatekeeper methods" to be a consequence of missing "respect" or missing
> > "politeness" then those people are either strictly dumb and superficial,
> or
> > they owe a gesture that I would call a "Well, I know, but I do not want to
> > see what's going on"-disease, nothing else.
> > >
> > > Another term to describe the latter would be "bureaucratic lamb head
> > behaviour".
> > >
> > > See, Linus, if for instance Andrew Morton mails me some statement from
> > that Chehab going: "Again, do not take the patches from Uwe - he is always
> > regarding things through his personal prisma, and the rest he simply does
> > not perceive at all"
> > >
> > > then this is nothing but a gesture full of lies (somehow typical for
> > this Brazilian fascistoid opinion block head dictator), but it simply
> shows
> > that the linuxtv.org teamleader is a horrible mismatch, nothing else!
> > >
> > > His mediocrity and dumbness simply defines through the fact that he is
> > using stigmatizations very soon in a so-called "discussion" because he
> > misses
> > > a. human skills
> > > b. technical proven arguments and theses
> > > c. enough experience, human or technical one.
> > >
> > > And the biggest threat and shame is the proven fact that Andrew Morton
> > does obey to such a stupid reactionary idiot and let his face soap in by
> > this dirty Brazilian hypocrite instead of giving contributions at least a
> > chance through his mm-tree.
> > >
> > > So there are exactly two solutions:
> > > 1. Andrew Morton should not obey to Chehab anymore and be real open
> > > 2. Chehab and Abraham should be substituted as quick as possible without
> > any hesitation in no way!!!!
> > >
> > > The one that got to be fired with the most urgent priority is called
> > Mauro Carvalho Chehab. This is no maintainer, this is no gatekeeper, but
> this
> > is nothing but a real personified ape or disease.
> > >
> > > And the argument whether those people are paid for their work or not is
> > exactly as important as if a sack of rice falls down somewhere in
> > capitalist China or not.....
> > > OBSOLETE!!!
> > >
> > > Yours sincerely
> > > Uwe
> > >
> >
> > If eventually somebody thinks this kind of stuff could be helpful,
> > please say so and give us some pointers.
> >
> > Hermann
> >
> Hi Hermann,
>
> now if you are searching for helpful stuff I can make public a ten Emails
> ping pong
> betwwen stupid Chehab and me about my almost excellent dst-deselection patch
> contributions.
>
> In this ten Emails you will yourself see the intellectual and technical
> proof in how far Mr. Chehab is acting with nothing else but:
>
> a. Lies
> b. Unproven thesis
> c. Stigmatizations
>
> and so on.
>
> THIS MAN HAS NO IDEA, BUT HE HAS THE POWER!
>
> That's it what I cannot live with!
> I swear I never stumbled over such an utomst stubborn, stupid and horrible
> idiot in my whole year lasting Linux experience, and I thought I could not
> trust my eyes when I saw what incredible crap work was pushed into mainline
> by the signature of this
> incredible and horrible team chief from Brazil.
>
> If you want to see the Emails, just ask me and I will forward them with a
> couple of CCs. They will show the truth about the real consistence of this
> "maintainer leader".
>

Uwe,

which patches do you refer to?
Can you submit a list of your patches which got no attention (I'm only
interested in the patches, not in discussions you had)

Markus