451–460 of 487 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you can't handle a message like that, then perhaps it's just as well. Such conduct is not tolerated in workplaces, where people are paid to contribute, why do you consider it acceptable in an environment where people contribute for free?
Well, when the quality problems are severe enough to get someone fired from a workplace...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you can't handle a message like that, then perhaps it's just as well. Such conduct is not tolerated in workplaces, where people are paid to contribute, why do you consider it acceptable in an environment where people contribute for free?
Because, you know, in your workplace, you are in an actual inferiority position. Your boss is the one that says how much are you going to be paid next month (or IF your are going to be paid), or whether you are going to work in a nice project or maintaining a 20 years old codebase. If he bullies you, verbally or otherwise, facing up or quitting might have dire consequences. On the other hand, in most open source proj…
Even between two coworkers of equal status, this behaviour would not be tolerated by a good employer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then you'd point out all the pretty crappy code Linus had checked in? That would be your, what, revenge? And a way of showing how not to be a jerk? I don't think Linus would care. Everyone makes mistakes. Linus is a gatekeeper of sorts and he has to "point out crappy code" whether people like his language or not. The outside world just needs to decide how seriously they take these outbursts. I don't think there's any…
There are certainly evil outcomes when potential contributors actively avoid the Linux kernel and/or other open source projects because the culture can be so hostile. It's a double loss. It makes the code weaker and less innovative, and it makes the culture seem unappealing to outsiders. You might not think that's significant. But how can you know what you're missing by not being more exclusive? Consider: open source…
I don't see any evidence of a huge number of people, that could otherwise contribute anything meaningful, avoiding Linux kernel because it's "hostile". They avoid it because they simply don't have anything meaningful to contribute, or are not able to contribute with the level of quality required in Linux kernel, or they are unable to handle the inevitable criticism.
Also, I'm pretty sure Linus has never used those words to tell people to get lost. Don't invent stuff. He might use strong language but in many cases it is humor or he knows the receiver personally.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know about anyone else, but when I read Linus write: "Of course, I'd also suggest that whoever was the genius who thought it was a good idea to read things ONE F✦CKING BYTE AT A TIME with system calls for each byte should be retroactively aborted. Who the f*ck does idiotic things like that? How did they noty die as babies, considering that they were likely too stupid to find a tit to suck on?" https://lkml.or…
I'm wondering what kind of world you would like instead? Would you like those mailing lists to be an environment similar to what you have in the mass media, where political correctness and hypocrisy is rampant, and anytime someone crosses the boundary we use words like 'hate'?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wouldn't say his projects were hated for political reasons. They were hated because they were a central piece of software (sound for PA the init for systemd) and they were released unfinished. It's certainly wrong to turn that to personal attacks against him, but I can understand why people disliked PulseAudio then Systemd - and even hated these projects because they caused breakage in numerous systems, hours to tr…
> they were released unfinished Isn't that how open source is /supposed/ to work? TBH, as a Debian user, I'm quite happy with the "Lennart releases theoretically brilliant but practically buggy apps, Ubuntu / Arch users suffer for a few months, Debian integrates the system once it's stable" workflow :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As someone who thinks systemd, as well as the entire OSS practice of "we're bored, let's re-invent the wheel"[1], is taking everything in the wrong direction: you still don't handle this with abuse. You deal with it via forking. [1] http://www.jwz.org/doc/cadt.html
If systemd was willing to conform to a standardized interface, published on freedesktop.org or similar, so that it was possible to swap out compatible implementations, I would agree with you. But instead the systemd folks deliberately make incompatible changes that they know will break non-systemd systems (e.g. Gentoo). At that point a fork does no good; it's "dos ain't done 'till lotus won't run" all over again.
No, thanks. systemd's interfaces are publicly available and with good enough documentation. Most of them are even declared stable, only the internal ones are obviously free to change.
In fact many project are now attempting to reimplement systemd's interfaces as this is how FLOSS work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I googled his name and as soon as I read what projects he works on I instantly knew his complaint was perfectly valid. Probably the most hated Linux projects ever devised, and for purely political reasons.
I wouldn't say his projects were hated for political reasons. They were hated because they were a central piece of software (sound for PA the init for systemd) and they were released unfinished. It's certainly wrong to turn that to personal attacks against him, but I can understand why people disliked PulseAudio then Systemd - and even hated these projects because they caused breakage in numerous systems, hours to tr…
PulseAudio was unfortunately released in Ubuntu even before Lennart & co. declared it releasable, so it was Ubuntu's fault if it gained a reputation of being "unfinished" (indeed it was, but it was not a fault of the PulseAudio team).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OK, that's a technical matter. That's not what he's upset about, the issue is bullying. I think, also, that you are pretty unreasonable yourself there - he's not making things deliberately as hard as possible. Nobody told the Debian guys to standardize on systemd.
It's not purely technical. Pottering absolutely has attempted to force adoption, if not directly with the distros then with the gnome integration. Systemd has succeeded where technically better alternatives failed by encouraging downstream software to hard-depend on systemd, rather than offering/conforming to a standardized interface, which is a dirty tactic, user-hostile and technically damaging. And the refusal to…
The GNOME developers simply had two choices: keep using the old, bug-ridden and still-unmaintained ConsoleKit or switch to the simpler, more powerful logind D-Bus interface.
ConsoleKit is still more-or-less supported upstream, but given it's extreme bugginess many distro choose to disable it and rely on logind interfaces.
Note that this does not mean that GNOME depends on systemd: as long as something else is implementing the needed logind interfaces (eg. systemd-shims) GNOME will happily run.
And no, a maintainer refusing patches is absolutely not "antithetical to the spirit of open source". The spirit of open source is that you can fork if you don't agree with a maintainer. It's simple as that.
Systemd and PulseAudio are getting pushed down everybody's throat, unasked for. They are both horrible to work with and suck quite a bit, both introduced way prematurely and buggy. Why did he not roll his own distro fully based on systemd to convince people it is so cool? instead of rolling out his own distro, people responsible for distro package/rolling were convinced it should be added to the default; as it was so…
> Why did he not roll his own distro fully based on systemd to convince people it is so cool? Why don't you roll your own distro and keep init in that? I'm honestly not trying to troll. Isn't the point of open source that each individual can do what they want with the code? Why is it someone else's responsibility to maintain code options that you want, but they don't?
http://0pointer.de/public/gnomeasia2014.pdf
The above; This is not linux to me anymore, its something else, something new, and i think, my opinion, is that it should have been setup as something new, not adopted into existing linux distros. Calling it CoreOS, why not release a new distro called CoreOS, and then when the ground/framework is done, have ubuntu, red hat and every package manager/maintainer of each distro roll their CoreOS flavour distro. As this migration is horrible (i can't find a better word).
But i think many simply like 'to ride the wave of 'software' change', be the author having its name above a package for a particular distro, having their names mentioned in the wiki as the author that brought 'the change'. Thinking something new must be better, of course plenty that don't think that and honestly fool themselves there is a need for systemd.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If systemd was willing to conform to a standardized interface, published on freedesktop.org or similar, so that it was possible to swap out compatible implementations, I would agree with you. But instead the systemd folks deliberately make incompatible changes that they know will break non-systemd systems (e.g. Gentoo). At that point a fork does no good; it's "dos ain't done 'till lotus won't run" all over again.
http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/InterfacePo...
Consolekit could live on top of any and all inits out there. Logind balks if it does not have systemd sitting as pid1.