It would be difficult for an unknown individual or unknown/untrusted organisation.
It's less difficult for a respected university willing to sacrifice its reputation.
Conversation
The patches for the study were submitted from Gmail addresses. It wasn't tied to the university and didn't even use university email addresses. I don't know why people keep repeating this misinformation, including kernel developers.
1
2
That's not one of the emails involved in the study. It was an inaccurate claim. I suggest not spreading misinformation and libel.
Kernel maintainers being dishonest and misrepresenting good faith patches from students as part of a past study makes the project look bad.
1
2
I trust them more than you and more than anyone attempting to commit hypocrite patches to the Linux kernel.
lore.kernel.org/linux-nfs/YH+z
1
1
Again, the patches involved in that study were submitted from Gmail addresses. The study is a past event. You're linking a recent patch from a student not involved in it. It's misinformation and is dishonest. It is making Linux look increasingly bad in this situation, not better.
2
1
The "past event" taints everything going forward and for obvious good reason.
1
Kernel maintainers being consistently dishonest taints the project. Misrepresenting what happened and making unjustified accusations against good faith contributions from students isn't a good look.
Slandering students there for something they didn't do really doesn't look good.
2
1
Saying the student submitted a do-nothing patch (at best) isn't slander
1
Huge difference between stating that you think the study was unethical (I fully agree) and attacking students that weren't involved in it and who have engaged in making substantial good faith and usually helpful contributions as part of these efforts.
Criticizing the study for unethical human experimentation makes sense. Attacking these students and spreading misinformation in a misguided attempt to defend the kernel's reputation is worse than what the study actually did. Kernel maintainers did most of the harm themselves...
1
2
I think their unethical study demonstrated something important and useful. Maybe I'll fund similar work. Maybe we won't tell them we did it like they did in this study. If that's a problem, well, that's the point. It's clear to a lot of us it's unworkable, but to most it isn't.
1
1
Show replies