Conversation

Replying to and
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
Replying to and
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
Replying to and
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
Replying to and
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
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
Show replies