LWN.net's Journal
[Most Recent Entries]
[Calendar View]
Wednesday, April 28th, 2021
| Time |
Event |
| 3:18p |
An Interview With Linus Torvalds: Linux and Git (Tag1) The Tab1 Consulting site has posted an
interview with Linus Torvalds.
So I think the GPLv2 is pretty much the perfect balance of
"everybody works under the same rules", and still requires that
people give back to the community ("tit-for-tat"). And everybody
knows that all the other people involved are bound by the same
rules, so it's all very equitable and fair.
Of course, another part of that is that you also get out what you
put in. Sure, you can try to "coast" on the project and be just a
user, and that's ok. But if you do that, you also have no control
over the project. That can be perfectly fine too, if you really
just need a basic operating system, and Linux already does
everything you want. But if you have special requirements, the only
way to really affect the project is to participate.
| | 3:36p |
Security updates for Wednesday
Security updates have been issued by Debian (chromium and shibboleth-sp), Fedora (ceph and salt), Oracle (thunderbird), Red Hat (etcd), Scientific Linux (nss and openldap), SUSE (curl, gdm, and libnettle), and Ubuntu (openjdk-8, openjdk-lts and underscore). | | 3:49p |
| | 3:52p |
[$] Rethinking Fedora's compiler policy Now that the Fedora 34 release is out the door, the Fedora project is turning its attention to Fedora 35, which is currently scheduledfor release on October 26. One of the changes under consideration for Fedora 35 is this
proposal allowing maintainers to choose whether to build their packages with GCC or Clang. This policy change may give maintainers some welcome flexibility, but it has not proved entirely popular in the Fedora community. | | 4:31p |
"Full disclosure" from the University of Minnesota The researchers at the University of Minnesota have posted a
description of the work they did [PDF] as part of their "hypocrite
commits" project. It includes a list of the buggy commits they posted and
how they were handled.
In the following we will show two parts: (1)
the message log of our disclosure of the findings to the community, and (2)
the patches we submitted. By showing the details of the patches and the
exchange of messages, we wish to help the community to confirm that the
buggy patches were "stopped" during message exchanges and not merged into
the actual Linux code. No other interactions with the Linux Kernel team
has involved intentional deception or intentionally misleading or bad
patches. This misguided behavior on our part was limited to the patches
described and clarified in this document.
Amusingly, one of their attempts to submit a buggy commit was, itself,
buggy, yielding a valid change overall. |
|