http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...260528#Features

Scroll down to the "Features" table.
Look at the extreme right column.

Was Reiser ever convicted of murdering his wife?

Yes, just this week.

Did his wife testify against him at the trial, or did they have to rely on forensic evidence from Dmcdevit?

Yes.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...r&sn=005&sc=410

"arrogance and lack of compassion"

A commonplace description of the personalities of many "prominent"
computer programmers, believe it or not......

It's all peepee-wagging. Skyscrapers, highways, canals, boats, aircraft,
cars, trucks, even bloody lawnmowers I suppose. And now, anything to do
with computers. "My journaling file system is BIGGER than yours!"

Compare that to the central character of The Stranger, by Albert Camus.

Hahahahaha, that guy was guilty as sin, glad to see he got what he deserved.



Nina wanted to, but for some reason she wasn't able to make it. Actually the prosecution relied on the testimony of Hans Reiser as that was the most damning evidence of all.

Is a wife allowed to testify against her husband

Yes, especially if she was murdered by her husband.

<Cackle!>

Thats the 2nd huge belly laugh this place has given me today (after the PETA one)

One would think, though, it would be rather counterproductive to the prosecution's case for them to call her as a witness.

They'd prolly have to issue a bench warrant to bring her into the court to testify.

Is that something in UK law? I saw that in the movie Atonement, but I've never heard of it in the US.

Spousal privilege can be waived for various reasons. I imagine the fact that the husband of said spouse was on trial for said spouse's murder might be one of the more creative reasons. I wonder if Law and Order has used that one.

In some states in the US a person cannot be forced to testify against a spouse or close relative (parent, child, maybe sibling), I believe.

(Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, just a long-time Law & Order fan) supposedly there's a rule in the US, or some US states, that prevents a spouse from testifying about the content of certain kinds of communication even if they want to.

And this is Wikipedia neutrally describing a computer file system:

"ReiserFS is a general-purpose, journaled computer file system designed and implemented by a team at Namesys led by convicted murderer [1] Hans Reiser. ReiserFS is currently supported on Linux...."


Talk about "poisoning the well"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReiserFS

I think a wife can testify about what her husband DID (specifically what he did to her), but never about what he said.

Hmm... is whether the developer is or isn't a murderer relevant to the quality/safety/reliability of the file system? I think you could argue it both ways but I do see your point, it probably isn't relevant. However, what if the developer was a convicted embezzler or identity thief? I'd say it matters then, yes? I don't want to use a file system to hold my sensitive data if the file system was written by someone known to steal sensitive data.

What do you suggest be the phrasing?

Edit: I think the article has been revised so that this tidbit isn't in the lede, which I fully support. It is still mentioned in the article body (the part about SUSE having stated that removal of Reiser3 within 2 days of Reiser's conviction being coincidence, I thnk)

Conversely, what if the erstwhile editors of such biographies were known for their former escapades as fraudsters or identity thieves?

Seems like good information to be aware of. That's a pretty good argument for real identities of editors being required when editing BLPs so that the reader can decide for themselves... which argument I'm very sympathetic to, if not yet completely convinced is absolutely required.

I know of individuals who have admitted to such shenanigans (confirmed by copious evidence), and I also know of shady editors who seem to be up to no good. But I have no way to make a concordance between known fraudsters and identity thieves and otherwise pseudonymous editors who exhibit similar antisocial tendencies whilst editing WP mainspace articles.

It's probably relevant in so far as further development of the file system (or any piece of software written by a person who's been sent off to the slammer for life, or whatever) isn't likely to be developed much further, at least not by the original author.

So in that case, IMO you'd remove the phrase "convicted murderer" where it's used as an adjective, and put a sentence in there somewhere (just not right at the top) along the lines of, "after Reiser was convicted of murdering his wife in April 2008, the status of ReiserFS has been the source of considerable conjecture," etc., along the lines of what's in the Future of ReiserFS section of his BLP article.

Doc_glasgow's point, I believe, is that using "convicted murderer" as an adjective for his name leaves too much to the imagination - IOW, the reader might imagine that he killed dozens of people, as opposed to just the one person. (Not that that makes it all right!)

And as for the other thing, I believe the way it works is that spouses can testify against each other in (most) courts of law, they just can't be compelled to.

Oh. Fortunately, neither I, nor my family or friends have committed felonies, so I guess I'm glad I don't know that one.

Or.... I don't watch enough "Law and Order". Same diff.