On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 10:58:44 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Thursday 15 June 2006 05:39, Peter wrote: >> On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 04:29:44 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: >> > being able to download patchsets from the internet, touchup a few >> > lines so they apply without rejects, and releasing the result to the >> > rest of the world deserves no respect/regard ... you've proven you >> > have skills at: >> > - wget >> > - patch >> > - an editor >> > - tar >> > >> > the respect/regard comes when the compiled kernel *actually performs* >> >> I respect your opinion. But, does that mean e17 should be removed, >> because it really has a lot of problems (like its file manager), or all >> it's libraries? How about wine? Just because a project may entail risk, >> should not eliminate it from being considered for inclusion in the tree >> OR in an overlay. > > you really dont get it
Maybe I just don't :( > > e17 doesnt break the whole system Any alpha software can. Read the warning label. e17 has caused me to hit the big red switch on several occasions. > > wine doesnt break the whole system > It can trash lots of files. Seen it. Been there. Oh, and one other little nasty about wine, you can get hit with a virus, and depending on how your local drives are configured, this can be a bad thing. > a pos kernel breaks the entire system and wastes everyone's time as it can > cause *any package at all* to crash and have bug reports filed about that > package > Any "good" kernel, improperly configured or used can do the same. "Why doesn't usb work? Why doesn't nvidia work? Why doesn't ssh-fuse not compile? Why can't I access my home filesystem?" etc. How many users installed hardened or sellinux and went "Oh sh*t" > your little sub thread here wasnt about different bleeding edge > packages, it was about the obviously incorrect statement that kernel > sources has no adverse affect on any other package -mike Listen, I'm not going to prolong this. My point was and IS that sources are just that. They are not applications. They must be configured correctly to run. If you're going to promote and publish -mm and -ck, then you can't rightly call a source based on -ck a "pos kernel." Maybe by your standards, but not by mine, or the others who follow this particular thread on bz and the forums. The point of the thread, and I already did my mea culpa for using a kernel source as an example, was to try and present a user's pov wrt to Sunrise and how it may benefit the community by hosting such projects. As I wrote to ciaranm, it's hard to micromanage and control every user's private installations once the initial install and build has completed. There's lots of evil out there, but kernel sources are no worse than a pos application or alpha software. Obviously, I'm not winning any converts here -- but that was not my intent. Anything else I write would be redundant. And, should I continue to fight this, I'd only be a hypocrite by continuing this thread when I chastise others for making these darn things too long! If you have particular comments, please contact me off list. I'll be lurking at the council meeting though. That should be fun! -- Peter -- [email protected] mailing list
