[shadowgovt]

> it's a four line bug fix for a very old issue on a non-mainstream platform

This thinking is what commercial software market dominance is made of. People unwilling to make the software move from the 99% case to the 100% case because those with the authority to hand out credit can't even be bothered to do that. Meanwhile, corporations just pay their people for scutwork, including the unsexy kind like making the software work correctly on a corner case architecture, and while credit isn't given, money is.

If anything, credit should be given even more freely for fixing old problems. "How the hell is this bug 6 years old and still here" is a common criticism of open source software.

It's hardly putting somebody's name "next to" Torvalds to note that they isolated a buffer overrun and contributed a correction for it.

[jacquesm]

I'm all for the 'Suggested-by' tag but still note that the maintainer did not act in a way that maintainers for the Linux kernel have been acting for pretty much as long as the kernel has existed. Security holes get plugged, credit is secondary to that, and drama over that credit is showing a large misunderstanding about how the Linux kernel has historically dealt with drive by patches, especially small ones.

[phendrenad2]

Sure, but how do we know that's the case here?

[jacquesm]

By reading the email exchange between the OP and the kernel maintainers. Which is materially misrepresented in TFA.