161–170 of 193 posts
I reckon he’s a lot less employable than he thinks he is.
Even assuming a non-controversial person, it's very hard to find a corporation willing to employ a dedicated, fully commited to upstream, foss, Linux Desktop experience developer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I can point to multiple specific instances where gnome developers were rude, unhelpful, arrogant, etc I too can point to multiple specific instances where Linux developers were rude, or where gcc developers were rude, or where SDL developers were rude, or where a lot of other developers were rude. I bet someone could dig through your comment history and find instances where you were rude and unhelpful too, probably…
>This always seems to happen and it's always from the same suspects trying to revive the same old >=10 year old forum threads. I think that has something to do with redhat defenders/employees needing to nitpick every little issue that anyone has in a public forum. The inability to just say "oh well that's bad but we're working on it" and instead try to mitigate or distract from any legitimate issues. Any discussion a…
Yes, I think it is creepy. Don't you think it would be creepy if someone was in a completely different thread in a conversation with someone else who had nothing to do you or with your decisions, started going through your 10 year old comments looking for disagreeable things, and using them as an excuse to discredit everything that you might have been slightly involved with? This person isn't a GNOME developer and he doesn't even work for Red Hat anymore.
>It's impossible to have a straightforward debate, it will get derailed into a bunch of minutia.
Please don't try to make this into a debate. This is not a constructive way to approach anything. If you look at this conversation as something you need to "win" then that would be the core of the problem. It is perfectly fine to express a negative opinion, but what is not okay is when you start saying things along the lines of "I am going to prove all the developers of XYZ are permanent irredeemable assholes". That is just furthering the flamewar, it's not moving past it into the actual issues.
>Tell me, have you been paid to work on systemd/gnome/redhat in the past?
No. This also is a somewhat trollish question that is unnecessarily making things personal and leans on a stereotype, in the future you shouldn't lead a conversation with questions like this. In particular, people can change their mind on all those things despite being paid in the past, or could be paid and still have a bad opinion of them, or could not be paid but still have a good opinion, or any number of other things that are outside the preconceived notions. A much better and friendlier way to phrase this would be something like "What is your experience with these projects/developers/companies?" Then the other person can divulge their employment status at those companies at their own accord, if they have a positive view of the employment then they probably will.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To quote myself: > Between Red Hat's maneuvering and Poettering's choices, though, it's not trivial to avoid them. I'm just explaining why some people dislike Poettering's work, while typically having no strong opinions about the careers of every single other author of init and sound daemons, whether or not they like the software. It's a combo of 1) disagreeing with their choices and methods, and 2) the fact that tho…
>It's a combo of 1) disagreeing with their choices and methods, and 2) the fact that those choices and methods have made his stuff much harder to avoid than the alternatives. That doesn't follow unless you consider "developing a software that becomes popular" to be a method or a choice. Again, I don't know what you expect them to do or what other choice you expect them to make. Should they have suddenly quit once it…
THIS doesn't make sense unless you consider that to be the only thing that happened.
If it had been, this story would never have made HN in the first place.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>It's a combo of 1) disagreeing with their choices and methods, and 2) the fact that those choices and methods have made his stuff much harder to avoid than the alternatives. That doesn't follow unless you consider "developing a software that becomes popular" to be a method or a choice. Again, I don't know what you expect them to do or what other choice you expect them to make. Should they have suddenly quit once it…
> That doesn't follow unless you consider "developing a software that becomes popular" to be a method or a choice. THIS doesn't make sense unless you consider that to be the only thing that happened. If it had been, this story would never have made HN in the first place.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's the story; he proposed new software and his employer liked the idea and paid him to develop that idea. End of story. People getting mad because they are "forced" to use a free software system? That's the fan-fiction from the peanut gallery.
> That's the story; he proposed new software and his employer liked the idea and paid him to develop that idea. End of story. If this was the story the comments in this thread would have been very different.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There's an obvious joke there :p > But I think it's reasonably clear that I wasn't saying they were trying to build a moat around desktop linux, but around those enterprise offerings. One part of that is making their init system the defacto standard. Frankly, no, it was not, or I wouldn't have written that. Those "enterprise offerings" have zero interaction with Pulse outside of some edge cases in SPICE for VDI. Th…
I don't think we're going to reach and real agreements here, a lot of these things are going to be subjective. I think there's a certain amount of "if everyone around you is an asshole maybe you're actually an asshole" but I doubt I'm going to be changing anyone's minds today. That being said there is a bit of hard data, this post nicely shows gnome contributions over time, as less and less non-redhat developer contr…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Desktop Linux is not Red Hat's core business and it hasn't been for a long, long time. Way before pulse or systemd. This is, fundamentally, a gross misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the way that open source works in general, and of the way Red Hat-employed developers in particular interacted with the ecosystem. I was in the engineering side in various positions for nearly a decade. The policy was upstream firs…
Never saw anything wrong with upstart. I used it for a few years and was pissed when it was unceremoniously dumped because of weird debian politics, effectively killing the project. I'd have had more respect for systemd if it truly were crowned because people liked it rather than because of a ~7 person vote.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From my point of view as an old guy who remembers the hell of init scripts, what they did was make an alternative to remembering arcane details of how each os and distro chose to set up their scripts. This: * made debugging a random system a lot more straight forward * made putting up software for packaging a lot easier * made customizing the start-up of a daemon a lot easier (this ties in with the first point) * mad…
These "simple" use cases break when you need to do anything even slightly more complex than whatever the systemD designers envisioned for the user. And if you try to submit an issue upstream, the typical response is "you're holding it wrong" or equivalent. This lack of a consistent design might be excusable when first trying to support a bunch of entirely novel use cases, but let's not pretend that it doesn't come wi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
systemd-homed is not systemd.
This whole Lennart Poettering thing of naming and bundling otherwise completely independent pieces of software "systemd-${thing}" even when they are at best just sightly related to "things you might want managed for you in your computer" doesn't make a lot of sense, and doesn't help in his defense that "systemd is supposed to be modular". My guess is that if PulseAudio had came later, it would be called "systemd-audi…