Hacker News Reader

Comment by azakai | Hacker News Reader

Is that what is happening here? Intel's explanation of "The Management" handing down orders doesn't imply technical reasons were the motivation. It's unclear.

If there are technical reasons - like the one you mentioned - let's hear them, they might be valid.

View on HN

I don't think I mentioned any technical reason? Allocating developer time is generally a management decision.

If anything, Intel has already put their resources into Wayland and the lack of any good technical reasons for Mir's existence probably played a large role in their decision.

I don't see why this is so shocking really, many other projects in the Linux graphics stack have already said that they won't be supporting Mir upstream any time soon. At this point, I'd be more surprised of hearing a project supporting Mir than the other way around.

Does anyone else see the "-The Management" comment as having more than a tinge of sarcasm? I think people are taking it a little too seriously.

http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/driver/xf86-video-intel/com...

Note "Ordered-by:" line, clearly intended to communicate Chris Wilson was ordered to do this, rather than doing it of his own accord.

You still see no attempt at humor or lightheartedness in this? May I remind you that his email ends in .co.uk, so many people may need to apply a "British humour filter". Most of his commits have "Signed-off-by:" with a name; he replaced "signed-off" with "ordered" and the name with a vague reference to "The Management".

The further context I was thinking of was this:

http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/driver/xf86-video-intel/com...

I'm obviously aware of both commits, and of much, much further context beyond the commits. No, I see no humor or lightheartedness. Signed-off-by is not just something Chris made up, it's a pseudo-standardized line for git commit messages.

Further context I'm aware of is that Chris explicitly accepted and applied the patch after working with the developers to get it right, along with other signs of cooperation.

Yet more context I'm aware of is much of the political bullshit surrounding Mir, Wayland, Canonical, Red Hat, Intel and really the entire FOSS community at this point.

This isn't a joke. This is Intel's management intervening.

> I'm obviously aware of both commits, and of much, much further context beyond the commits.

Maybe you should share that first, rather than leaving it implicit. (If your comment tells the whole story I am unconvinced. OK, so the guy merged a patch, then it turns out he did not in fact have the blessing of his employer, so he reverted it with a slightly snarky commit message. Any more context I should be aware of beyond that? It does not sound like a huge conspiracy to me.)

Edit: also, what does "The Management" mean? This guy's immediate supervisor? Intel CEO? I feel like some people are taking an oddly paranoid reading of the situation. I don't know anything about Intel specifically but I have worked at a large company, I am willing to bet that the higher you get in Intel's management the less they care about Ubuntu.

No, I'm not about to spend days or weeks trying to impart knowledge of the history, values, and practices of the entire FOSS community on you.

You're free to continue acting smug about things you don't understand and building strawmen left and right (I note this is at least the second time in the last week you've done this), but you should stop expecting others to do the heavy lifting for you.

You made it sound like you had inside knowledge of Intel's decision making process that is relevant here. If that's the case I think you should disclose it instead of getting mad at me or assuming it is universal knowledge.

Our thread from last week is totally unrelated to any of this. I would rather not engage in discussion that is based on personal animosity. Let's stay on topic.

No, I didn't make it sound like that. You are, once again, inventing a strawman, and drawing wild conclusions based on insufficient knowledge. Last week's thread is not unrelated. It shows the same pattern of inane, bad-faith behavior.

So saying that publicly signing something "The Management" while working in a company the size of Intel is comically vague, and saying people should lighten up a bit without additional info and perspective, that is acting in bad faith? I am not trying to offend anyone with this commentary, it is my own opinion.

> So saying that publicly signing something "The Management" while working in a company the size of Intel is comically vague

You didn't say that.

> saying people should lighten up

You didn't say that, either. Which is good, because "lighten up" is not, has never been, and will never be a reasonable thing to say to anyone, anytime, anywhere.

Your original comment wasn't unreasonable. Where you started going off the rails was initially with "May I remind you", which is patronizing.

Then "Maybe you should share that first, rather than leaving it implicit.", chiding me for failing to magically know that you lacked knowledge that is relatively common within the set of people who care about the subject at hand.

Then you characterized my statements as describing a "huge conspiracy". Being unaware of any "huge conspiracy", only a lot of wide-open politics, this is, to me, at once puzzling and insulting. "oddly paranoid" makes it even worse.

Then you accuse me of pretending to have inside knowledge of Intel, when I did no such thing, and did not intend to, and say I should "disclose" this thing I don't have, as if I'm trying to hide something.

And now you seek to rewrite history.

I am pretty sure I did say these things. But nevermind. More importantly I don't think I'm guilty of nearly the malice you ascribed to me, and a part of me is wondering where you are based on the off chance we can share a beverage of your choice and you can see I'm not a monster. Is it the thread from last week that has you angry at me?

I didn't even know who you were until your third comment, which sounded eerily familiar. And there are certainly no circumstances under which I would voluntarily associate with someone who displays your pattern of lashing out whenever they don't understand something.

Well, I tried. I would humbly suggest that one person's "lashing out" could be another's simple misunderstanding.

In the meantime I think there is a phrase you used to describe me, something along the lines of "willful misinterpretation"; I believe you may have done the same for me.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com