SELF: Anatomy of an (alleged) failure

"One might question the wisdom of using Hans Reiser as an example of the kernel development process gone wrong, as Gordon did. Reiser had a contentious relationship with the kernel community to begin with, and the fact that it was necessary to cite correspondence from Reiser's cell tends to undermine his credibility. But Gordon is to be credited with, at least, being thorough in interviewing his sources. Gordon showed several letters from Reiser gathered over months of correspondence about the failure to get Reiser4 into the mainline kernel.

"He described the problems that Reiser had in attempting to get Reiser4 into the kernel. In an unfortunate analogy, he said that Reiser failed to get a "fair trial" from the kernel community in considering Reiser4. Gordon also hinted that corporate interests may have sabotaged Reiser4 from being adapted into mainline — a longstanding contention of Reiser's — because of conflicting interests on behalf of the maintainers, though he cited no evidence for it. Gordon painted the kernel community as abusive towards Reiser, but omitted any mention that Reiser could also be caustic in return. Certainly, Gordon's point that the FAQ on KernelNewbies is unnecessarily personal is well-taken."

Complete Story

Related Stories:

• Linux: 2.6.34-rc4, "Hunting A Really Annoying VM Regression"(Apr 13, 2010)
• Linux: Memory Compaction(Apr 05, 2010)
• Inside the Linux 2.6 Completely Fair Scheduler(Dec 18, 2009)
• Tuning CFQ - What Station is That?(Oct 15, 2009)
• I Have a Schedule to Keep - IO Schedulers(Oct 07, 2009)
• Ingo Molnar Tests New BF Scheduler(Sep 09, 2009)
• Linux and its Identity Crisis(Sep 25, 2007)