In case someone finds it interesting, kernel bypass also exposes hardware capabilities which can be used for optimization. A recent research attempts at leveraging NICs to accelerate data serialization https://www.sigops.org/s/conferences/hotos/2021/papers/hotos...
> I've learned ... instead to simply say "I have a lot of experience with that technology" and leave it at that.
Shows Brendan's maturity.
I am not sure what should be the appropriate reaction or corrective measure in these situations. We should talk more about handling these unfair situations.
Someone else can become more successful building on top of one's open source project. On a resume, a top contributor and a minor contributor to open source project might have same weightage depending on how you present it - making the situation unfair for a person dedicatedly working on a single project (quality) vs minor contributor to multiple projects (quantity).
But deleting name and credits is wrong. An acknowledgement from the benefitting person (if not the recognition/reward) has far more positive impact on career than justifying to other's that your work was stolen.
It was a bit strange to read some of the initial negative comments. I see Brendan being a sport. I would argue that reading the story as a report against unknown persons at Sun makes more sense. I don't see much sense in blaming victim. And, in my opinion, the VIP had a good run but he isn't the bad guy here.
Thanks. There was a time when many observability products were adding latency heat maps, and at one conference expo floor there were three companies with latency heat maps on their screen at the same time, pitching them as a flagship feature. If I walked near them they'd start trying to explain them to me, and I never figured out an appropriate response. If I said "hey, great to see you added them, I invented these back at Sun" I'd get funny looks.
I think it's a small world, and everything is software, so the chance you'll bump into someone who wrote software you are using I think is pretty high. I was once trying to get my head around Andi Kleen's pmu-tools, and I had the github repo open in my browser on my laptop I was carrying, when the guy sitting next to me on a bus says he's Andi Kleen. (Ok, it was a bus taking Linux conference attendees to an event, not a random bus, but I still found it remarkable timing -- I was studying pmu-tools at that exact time!)
Still, it must be quite rewarding to know that everyone, no matter how big is using your tools. Before i knew anything about open source, i was somewhat surprised to see that even the giant that is Apple had open source licenses on their iPod. I assumed that apple had enough resources to develop all their own software, but no, they go just like everyone else and pick off-the-shelf software.
Thank you for sharing some of what you've learned with everyone in everything that you've published. I've been reading the latest addition of your systems performance book the past few weeks and it is amazing. You're work is pretty awe inspiring.
> If I said "hey, great to see you added them, I invented these back at Sun" I'd get funny looks.
I don't understand. What kind of funny looks were they? Disbelief? Distrust? Fear of your mental health? Realization of having been lied to by their bosses (oops it wasn't really an internal tool)?
Also, what were the impact of those funny looks? How did they make you feel? Was there any longer term consequences of telling them you wrote the thing?
Disbelief and suspicion. And fear of my mental health I guess: What's wrong with this person?
Maybe I just don't look or dress or sound like what one would expect. But there's context here too: At the time it's when these things are flagship features and on the booth monitors, and the booth staff are explaining the virtues of these features to everyone they meet. They are making it a big deal of it at the time, so maybe that makes it even more unbelievable that the inventor would wander by at that moment.
Now imagine what would happen if companies had a thanks page along with the other boilerplate pages (contact us, about us) on their website. If you're making millions from a thing, thank the original person for that thing. (I put thanks pages at the end of my slide decks, it's not hard.) These interactions would go a lot better -- "my name is on your company website" -- and could lead to fruitful discussions and collaboration instead of weird looks.
Years back I was at a deep learning conference and was reading Andrej Karpathy's blog during one of the talks. Demis hassabis had come in slightly late and sat at the last free seat that happened to be next to me.
He leaned over, asked if I liked the blog, and (slightly proudly if I remember correctly) mentioned that deep mind had hired Andrej for an internship starting soon.
> I am not sure what should be the appropriate reaction or corrective measure in these situations. We should talk more about handling these unfair situations.
Start recording; have them, a big multinational with a massive legal department, admit to violating and stripping a license from source code. Then sue them. They should know better, and they're making billions off of other people's work. That in itself is fair enough, if the license permits it, but removing the license is crossing the line.
Oh it needs to be redressed and some knuckles soundly rapped, maybe someone even fired depending on the situation, but suing is a last, last, last resort. "WARNING: Do not feed the Lawyers".
Most jurisdictions in the US are one-party-consent. I think the tech crowd tends to have a skewed perception of recording consent rules because California happens to be one of the relatively few two-party-consent states, but it's the exception rather than the rule.
Laws around recording typically also cover cases where an outside person, who isn't a party in the conversation, is recording. The idea is that there are three possibilities: all parties in the conversation consent to recording, one of the parties consents (almost certainly the person who wants the recording), and none of the parties consent (ie, someone is spying on the conversation). One-party consent is legal in a variety of countries and regions of countries, while zero-party consent is illegal pretty much everywhere I know.
> Some places only require one party (you the recorder) to consent.
That's whats you said, and it's not true, without consent from at least one recorded or being in a situation where recording is normal (tv etc) it's pretty much everywhere illegal.
And i wrote 'Most Country's' which is a hint that there is some 'Some others'. There is even a Country where singing under the shower is forbidden, in MOST others...it's not.
Sounds a bit more complicated then what you think it is:
>But the reality is that it is normally against the law to record a phone call without the other person’s consent.
>In fact, ‘covertly’ (secretly) using a listening device such as a mobile phone or digital recorder and publishing or otherwise distributing that material can amount to a criminal offence.
Recording private conversations:
>The laws only apply to ‘private conversations’, which is one where the parties may reasonably assume that they don’t want to be overheard by others.
>One of the exceptions to the prohibition against recording and/or publishing or distributing records of private conversations is where police officers have obtained what’s known as a ‘surveillance device warrant’ – also known as a ‘wire tap’ – which allows for the recorded material to be used for investigations and tendered in court provided, of course, that the material is relevant to the proceedings at hand.
Between jurisdictions:
>It is legal in all jurisdictions to record a phone call if ALL PARTIES to the phone call consent.
Yep. Here's a list of one-party recording consent states from [1]:
Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, District of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana*, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming
Consent by one party of the conversation. If you initiate a recording of a conversation, you can reasonably have consented to you, yourself, recording the conversation.
Note that I believe (and, IANAL) that if at least one party to the conversation resides in a "two-party consent" jurisdiction, you will need the consent from all such parties.
I didn't read maturity from this. I read timidness, conflict aversion, lack of standing up for oneself. Someone touring the world making hundreds of thousands of dollars, demoing your own software and claiming its their own? Violating your license setup, the foundation of OSS? I would have spelled it out as clearly as possible, including the legal implications, spelled out my assumption this person was claiming they worked hard on these tools when instead they did minimal stealing, and either talked about legal follow-up action or financial follow-up action. This is a time where anger, frustration, and being stern are justified.
>I am not sure what should be the appropriate reaction or corrective measure in these situations.
When it happens internally, i.e. I catch someone doing it, then either it is a "first time offense" of the clueless, or it is the act of an unethical person who will be unrepentant. For the clueless, it might be that they undervalue themselves, and therefore undervalue assigning credit. The unethical person, however, understands what they are doing and is simply untrustworthy. They will also likely have a lawyer, because they've done this before. So it can be pricey to get rid of them, but get rid of them you must. They are poison to your team.
Modi's BJP is a power hungry party unlike anything I have seen. I doubt they care about anything (nation, economy, welfare).
The way it has been going on is that government announces something or passes some bill because they have to do something on a particular topic (say black money, taxes, Covid). However, they are incompetent or don't have the willingness or interest in actually carrying it out. So, these changes turn out to be catastrophic. They take toll on economy as well as anyone impacted because of the decision making.
Agriculture reforms are much needed in India. However, the government did it in hurry by-passing rules and without consulting farmers. I guess, they just want to do something so that they can let the marketing take care of the rest (that the goverment has done something for farmers - doesn't matter what or irrespective of whether it really helps them).
With these bills, the concern is that it will let private players take over and exploit farmers because of insufficient provisions to take care of farmers' interest. And then nobody will care (very much a risk because no one raises voice of oppressed which might show government in bad light because of the sold-out media). And the government will push narrative that they did the "reforms" (backed by fake data which is a hallmark of this government).
> Agriculture reforms are much needed in India. However, the government did it in hurry by-passing rules and without consulting farmers
That is false. These reforms are decades in the making with just about everyone opposing these laws now had advocated for it. Case in point, take a look at this tweet from BKU (the union leading these protests) - https://twitter.com/BKU_KisanUnion/status/110167401066691379...
In the above tweet, the farmers union is demanding that these vert farms laws should be implemented. Then after the government did that, they started protesting what they were demanding in the first place. And this is not the only incident.
So how come everyone demanding these laws is now protesting against the same laws? Common sense would dictate that the protests are not due to these laws. They are political in nature, where these laws are used as a shield to help legitimise these protests
Quite strikingly, the BJP government in power has been unable to produce a shred of evidence -- minutes, paper work etc of any of the purported meetings they claim they had with the farmer organizations. There has been RTI requests (its the Indian analogue of FOIA) for these and the government has been unable to put forth any supporting evidence.
Even RSS (BJP cadres) affliated BKS questioned why the bills were passed in hurry.
They suggested changes to the bill and commented - "We have serious doubts whether the current bills will serve any purpose to the farmers and it appears more of a tool for the buyers rather than the farmers."
Since the title mentions the idea as well as the govt, let me add that while the idea is excellent, the current (Modi) govt is incompetent when it comes to execution, or may be has some other interests. Examples - failed demonetization, poor implementation of Goods and Services Tax (GST), failed Covid-19 lockdown. Most of what the govt does benefits select corporates (eg. rise of Jio). Interestingly, Paytm benefited the most during demonetization (2016) which is mentioned in the article and might have catalyzed the idea. The important part to notice is that demonetization was aimed at wiping out black money, GST was supposed to improve taxation, Covid-19 lockdown was supposed to dampen the long-term effect. However, these steps which were supposed to improve economy turned out to be counter-productive. Due to the poor or misdirected execution, India's economic is tanking down. So, although self-dependence is the stated goal, I am not sure where it will land. Moreover, the authoritarian tendencies don't help either. They are known to blackout journalists, assassinate lawyer, conduct media trials and put anyone speaking against them in jail. They will be a bigger bully than Google/Apple and pose a bigger risk to privacy.
>>>They are known to blackout journalists, assassinate lawyer, conduct media trials and put anyone speaking against them in jail.
Can you please share some citation for the assassination part. I don't think the Bar Council of India would be happy if a lawyer is assassinated by government.
By the way, the govt has been very active in making sure that they have their loyal representatives in bureaucracy as well as in judiciary. Recently, the Supreme Court convicted a prominent lawyer for a tweet criticizing them [2]. It is very easy for them to dismiss cases which might show them in bad light. Media has no independence either. Eg. the case of Punya Prasun Bajpai [3] who's show was blacked out and eventually cancelled because it was critical of Modi.
This is complete BS you are spreading here. Justice Loya family clarified in detail and his fraternity many of whom are left leaning also expressed concern that the opposition party is playing dirty politics and his death was natural. One of the Supreme Court justice was even by his bedside during his death. Entire Indian media should be blacked out if criticising Modi was the criteria. Because that's what they do day in day out barring a very few.
Anyone in India know PPB is affiliated with AAP has pulled out too many stunts to be any credible.
You are not too off from what has already been stated in the link, just that you cherry-picked it. Regarding criticism, Modi himself tweeted that "criticism makes democracy stronger"[1] so why should anyone get blacked out!
And their previous roadmaps were completely inaccurate in the most recent shrinks which saw shrinks take, what, 5 years rather than 1 year? Have they even gone to 7nm successfully yet?
Source: https://www.micahlerner.com/2021/07/07/breakfast-of-champion...