[eqvinox]

> works so well a bug showed up in the kernel :-)

What exactly are you trying to highlight here? Most code has bugs. This one is someone forgetting to stick to actual behavior described in 1997, it's a mistake, mistakes happen. Which one of "secure", "simple", "battle tested" and "no crazy architecture" do you think this disproves?

Or do you think CIFS or Ceph have no bugs?

[gyesxnuibh]

I think they're saying typically the kernel one of the last places you'd expect the bug, so it shows that it is battle tested?

I don't think they're being snarky.

[eqvinox]

I didn't really read it as snarky, I just straight up don't understand what they mean (and maybe why that smiley is there?)

[vrnvu]

By "no crazy architecture" I meant it avoids the modern trend of building monstrous data platforms on top of data meshes, event buses, and layers of cloud abstractions. The kind I sometimes see, hence the smiley :-)