This is much more reasonable than the "paraphrased" reply in the blog post.

I think it's somewhat dishonest that the blog author used the quotation feature in his blog post, but instead of including a quote he made up his own response as if the kernel maintainer said it. I barely noticed this parenthetical above the gigantic block quote:

> He said (paraphrasing):

Anyone reading the blog post too fast would assume the kernel maintainer actually said those dismissive words in the gigantic block quote.

>Anyone reading the blog post too fast would assume the kernel maintainer actually said those dismissive words in the gigantic block quote.

That's my case. I only know it was paraphrased because of this thread. The quote pulled my attention before I could finish the previous line.

Yeah, the paraphrasing here is misleading.

Ironically the topic is intellectual honesty.

What's the big deal about misquoting here?

The blog post author just liked his version better. ;-)

Yeah, and I might have felt a bit “blind” if it were not for you guys also having the same experience: I did not see that parenthetical at all, probably both on account of the linebreak right before it and the (as you say) huge blockquote.

I would hope the author of the post corrects this, "I wanted to fix it differently" is not even close to "I like my version better."

It's still a bit crap to not get proper credit, but it's not fair to put words into someone else's mouth either. The author isn't paraphrasing, he's sharing the story he's told himself after being upset.

And the maintainers reply already includes the proposed patch, with:

> Reported-by: Ariel Miculas <...>

Ariel could just have pressed "reply" in his email client and pointed this out if he felt wronged.

But no, instead he is writing a blog post one year later misrepresenting the maintainer and the Linux project.

I believe the implication is that this exchange happened in private.