I too really wanna recommend that read to everyone, even when not interested in GEFS or file systems. This is what in my opinion technical writing should look like. Really great clear non-self-obsessed writing.
[off topic rambling on scientific writing]
I think scientific paper authors can learn something from this as well and hopefully make it easier to peer review and maybe help a lot with so many papers not being reproducible, even when ending up in major journals. I know academia is a lot (too much IMO) about self-advertising in order to get funding, but it's just sad when on one hand there is that ideal of following the scientific process and the lack of thereof when looking at successful reproduction of findings, the amount of personal and journal biases, etc. And that's not even talking about malicious intent which certainly also exists or the lack of published "negative" outcomes, etc. While I certainly don't think it's all about writing style, I do think it influences good peer review. Given the size and idolization of science I think the practice way too often seems lacking. Not saying there is an easy solution and I certainly don't try to talk anybody down. I just think clear writing might be a relatively easy[1] maybe sometimes overlooked step into this direction.
And of course all that is true outside of scientific writing as well.
[1] Not for everyone of course, but often there are co-authors to ask for help and I hope people are not ashamed of doing so. I know people that struggle with writing, but do excellent scientific work. This isn't about that. It's about papers that feel like their primary goal isn't the finding, but selling the author(s), institutions or worse a product. And even then there are papers where this doesn't affect the paper much, and ones where it feels like important parts are skipped over. Then it barely feels scientific anymore.
miah | 10 hours ago
This is so exciting to see! I can't wait until it reaches testing.
thisalex | 2 hours ago
I spent the morning reading design document on GEFS. It’s quite interesting! https://orib.dev/gefs.html
reezer | 16 minutes ago
I too really wanna recommend that read to everyone, even when not interested in GEFS or file systems. This is what in my opinion technical writing should look like. Really great clear non-self-obsessed writing.
[off topic rambling on scientific writing]
I think scientific paper authors can learn something from this as well and hopefully make it easier to peer review and maybe help a lot with so many papers not being reproducible, even when ending up in major journals. I know academia is a lot (too much IMO) about self-advertising in order to get funding, but it's just sad when on one hand there is that ideal of following the scientific process and the lack of thereof when looking at successful reproduction of findings, the amount of personal and journal biases, etc. And that's not even talking about malicious intent which certainly also exists or the lack of published "negative" outcomes, etc. While I certainly don't think it's all about writing style, I do think it influences good peer review. Given the size and idolization of science I think the practice way too often seems lacking. Not saying there is an easy solution and I certainly don't try to talk anybody down. I just think clear writing might be a relatively easy[1] maybe sometimes overlooked step into this direction.
And of course all that is true outside of scientific writing as well.
[1] Not for everyone of course, but often there are co-authors to ask for help and I hope people are not ashamed of doing so. I know people that struggle with writing, but do excellent scientific work. This isn't about that. It's about papers that feel like their primary goal isn't the finding, but selling the author(s), institutions or worse a product. And even then there are papers where this doesn't affect the paper much, and ones where it feels like important parts are skipped over. Then it barely feels scientific anymore.