Alfred Perlstein wrote:
>
> * Kate Ebneter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [000216 17:07] wrote:
> >
> >
> > Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> > >
<snip for brevity>
> >
> > Ahhhhh ... so THIS is what you're ranting about! Well, TURN IT OFF. It's
> > open source. Or fix it in your own source. And forget about it. It's not
> > worth getting worked up over, you know?
>
> So some other kid who tries to turn it on gets screwed over the
> same way I did? First by it being broken and then second by having
> patches to fix it rejected or ignored?
>
> You've got to be kidding yourself if you think that's something
> I'd wish on anyone else.
If you feel that strongly about it, push the maintainers a little
harder, then. Or post your patches somewhere that people can get to them
easily. Look, I'm not saying that the way you were treated (or think you
were treated) was right, just that, well, there's a lot going on and
this may not a be a priority for the maintainers. They apparently either
don't think it's as broken as you think it is, or don't think it's such
a big deal, or aren't aware of it -- but blaming Greg for it and ranting
about it on the mailing list is obviously not helping.
> > > It doesn't work, it never worked, it's not been working for over
> > > a year and patches aren't be accepted to fix it... get rid of it.
> >
> > Alfred, welcome to the wonderful world of volunteerism. (BTW, there are
> > bugs in some Microsoft commercial software that have been there for
> > YEARS. At least with open source, you can fix it for yourself.)
>
> *rolls eyes*
>
> Look, you're obviously one of people that just doesn't get the
> whole idea behind open source, as indicated by you not seeing a
> problem with forking an entirely new version of gcc!
>
> One shouldn't have to fork a project just to get some real fixes in.
No, indeed, one should not. I was pointing out that many companies DO
have the resources to fork a version of even a fairly substantial piece
of software -- gcc -- even when the company itself is relatively small.
I should have been more clear: We didn't fork gcc to fix a bug. We
forked gcc to modify it to work in our situation, which involves
compiling ROMable verisions of an operating system. I'm quite aware of
the notion of open source and how it works, thanks.
> The ideal situation is one where you contribute back to the community,
> and _not_ fork a proprietary version. Forking a proprietary version
> should be the last thing one thinks about and one of the main ideas
> behind the GPL.
Did I say it was proprietary? We distribute it to licensees of our
operating system; no one else needs it. Let me say that again: No one
else needs it, nor would anyone else find it useful. If it was useful
stuff, or bug fixes, we would contribute it to the gnu project through
appropriate channels.
> And yes, I know what volunteerism is about, I work on a project that
> happens to have a very clear view on non-functional code, we ditch
> it.
So do we.
> Let's say I introduced a feature into the kernel that panic'd the
> system and trashed the filesystem if someone used it...
>
> There'd be no way that it would still be in the source tree if I
> hadn't fixed or maintained it in under a few weeks, nevermind over
> a year.
>
> The idea to leave such a landmine in the project would never cross
> my mind.
Alfred, I don't think we're in fundamental disagreement; I just think
you're ranting in the wrong place and at the wrong people, and I'm
really tired of this flame war overflowing my mail box. I realize that
I'm contributing to it, now, so I'll stop with this.
Kate Ebneter
Build Engineer and Rabbit Wrangler
DataRover Mobile Systems, Inc.
