On 9/13/2022 2:33 PM, Michael Stone wrote: > On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 02:14:38PM -0400, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote: > >So do you, obviously. Someone said something that raised that question in my > >mind, > >but you deleted that part from this message, which proves you are the one > >who has > >an ax to grind by not answering the question that has been raised by the > >comments > >you and another person has been making. > > What question?
You identified "rhetorical questions" that you wanted me to stop. > I saw no question. Either talk about specifics or it's > nothing but empty FUD. > > >> Either get to the point and discuss > >> what's bothering you directly or stop with the pointless rhetorical > >> questions. > >> > > > >It bothers me that there are supposed advocates of free/oss software like > >Debian > >who think that it is good for free/oss software if the persons who volunteer > >to develop and maintain free software like Debian can ignore bugs reported > >to them > >and refuse to fix them. > > Here's the thing: it's open source. If you think it's not being done > right THEN YOU DO IT DIFFERENTLY. If you don't like how some software is > being maintained, fork it and show everyone how it can be done better. Actually, someone already has shown us how to do it better. His name is Linus Torvalds. Debian and other oss projects should see and understand what he does that makes the Linux kernel a truly useful software project. Debian is successful because of the Linux kernel, not the other way around. Since you bring up forks, I have an opinion about that. Everyone have their own fork is not a sustainable model for free/oss software, IMHO. If everyone needs to have their own fork, that is because of the failure of the way free/oss projects are governed. Again this is just my opinion, but I think it is valid. There is a place for some forks when the goal of the project has a particular focus, but for a project like Debian, which currently claims to support 59000 free software packages in the stable distribution, the focus is on general purpose computing and, IMHO, it is a failure for Debian and free/oss software when a fork such as Devuan happens. The Devuan fork proved how ridiculous it is for Debian to claim to be able to support 59000 software packages in its stable distribution, which is currently what the "Reasons to use Debian" page on debian.org claims. I think that if Debian really wants to provide *high quality* support for each and every one of the 59000 software packages in its repositories, it should look at the Devuan fork and try to understand what it could have done to prevent it from happening. All those people working on Devuan could still be working on Debian. I don't understand why it was good for that fork to happen. Just my opinion, FWIW. > > It's unreasonable to just sit on the sidelines and make vague > accusations. The ax you want to grind seems to involve one specific > issue. The issue is the survival of free/oss software - it will not survive if the idea that those who develop and maintain free/oss software don't have to respond to the bugs that are reported to them prevails. No one will use it if the people who create it are free to let the problems that inevitably arise go without fixing them. > Tell us what it is, then everyone can decide for themselves > whether you have a point, whether it can/should be addressed, or whether > you're just mad that you can't make someone else do what you want. I think I have clarified what the issue is sufficiently. I am not mad that I cannot make someone else do what I want. I would just be sad if free/oss software dies out because it was taken over by people who refused to acknowledge the simple idea that it is bad for free/oss software if those who develop and maintain the software are free to not fix the bugs that users report to them. Best regards, Chuck
