Mitigation

Posted May 8, 2006 16:07 UTC (Mon) by kirkengaard (guest, #15022)
In reply to: Linux kernel 'getting buggier,' leader says (ZDNet) by kirkengaard
Parent article: Linux kernel 'getting buggier,' leader says (ZDNet)

Less bluntly: the community, and Linux in general, has nothing whatever to fear from good negative feedback. Good negative feedback should induce constructive activity. Andrew's comment was properly hedged (he admitted he hadn't quantified the exact nature of the problem), and proposed properly constructive solutions.

Shoot your canary and you never know when you'll die in the mineshaft.

to post comments

Mitigation

Posted May 8, 2006 16:21 UTC (Mon) by tjc (guest, #137) [Link] (4 responses)

It's the "The sky is falling, Linux development is halting" articles from the mainstream press (not to mention any names like John Dvorak) that will be unappreciated by most of us.

Mitigation

Posted May 8, 2006 16:31 UTC (Mon) by kirkengaard (guest, #15022) [Link] (1 responses)

I appreciate the articles and their authors as well as the rest of you; have you a better way of stopping them than shooting the canary and compromising the develoment process?

You can't control what the media picks up. You want to make Andrew more media-potable? How about Linus? How long do any of these stories actually last? What you cannot control, ignore. Focus on what is actually important.

Besides, there seems to be a competent vulture-shooting squad. Save the canaries, let them shoot the vultures. :)

Mitigation

Posted May 9, 2006 1:02 UTC (Tue) by grouch (guest, #27289) [Link]

"You want to make Andrew more media-potable? How about Linus?"

That's actually slightly scary. Can you imagine either of them bubbling about 'architecting people-enabling featuresets on a going-forward basis'?

I like coders who just tell it like it is; makes me more confident in using their work. :)

Halting

Posted May 8, 2006 17:02 UTC (Mon) by AnswerGuy (guest, #1256) [Link] (1 responses)

Any journalist who would write such "Chicken Little" articles over the prospect of a *temporary deferral* of new feature merges (a "halting of development") would find his or her credibility among technical readers to be severely undermined.

Even many non-technical readers (those with skills in critical analysis -- such as decision makers in the Fortune 500 and Fortune 1000) would see through such sensationalism.

For Andrew Morton to temporarily block inclusion of all patches other than well tested and minimal fixes might be just the thing to encourage more of our developer base to scan through the bits of code with which they are familiar and do some serious janitorial work.

I know there is also a Kernel Janitors project which might benefit from a little more mentoring and attention.

Perhaps declaring one month to be "code cleaning" or "spring cleaning" would be sufficient (with the possibility of extending it by another month if things go so slowly).

JimD

decision makers...

Posted May 9, 2006 17:04 UTC (Tue) by pflugstad (subscriber, #224) [Link]

Even many non-technical readers (those with skills in critical analysis -- such as decision makers in the Fortune 500 and Fortune 1000) would see through such sensationalism.

Just my opinion/experience, but I think you're drastically overstating the abilities of such "decision makers".

Which means that what the "journalist" writes does have an impact. Just look at the continuing air time people like John "Let's whack the /. hornets nest" Dvorak and Rob "I am BillG's love child" Enderle keep getting. (Aside: if the /. editors had sense, they'd permanently ban any Dvorak article - the guy is clearly just a troll at this point).

You may not listen to them (having correctly concluded they are idiots), but "decision makers", in the absense of additional information, probably will. The only real solution seems to be to put out the right message, continually and constantly. This is slowly happening as companies like IBM engage their marketing arms constructively.

I think my point is that stories like this don't help the perception of Linux/OSS. They need to be clarified for all the "decision makers" out there who only see the sensationalist part.

Should we change Linux/Andrew - absolutely not. But there needs to be feedback and clarification, both to the journalist, their editors and "decision makers" about what the real story is.