On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 10:35:47 -0000, Tuomo Valkonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Probably not until they have aproblem,
You're too optimist.
You're too cynical...
No - The fix , as with all fixes, should be applied in the fewest number
of places.
No, the fix should be at the root of the problem.
i.e. your licence?
Seriously, the right place to put a "don't cry if you aren't bleeding
edge" message is in the code - nowhere else will do the job nearly as well.
No - they just wouldn't bother. Package maintainers aren't out to screw
you - they are out to make others lives easier
Bullshit. They e.g. include patches and modules I will not have anything
to do with
Are you talking about Xinerama support here? - the mod which works fine,
doesn't cause probles on non Xineramra desktops but you have some bizarre
notion is amoral on some grounds I've never quite grasped?
Most development should be cathedral style, with a bazzar as "unstable".
The distros take the bazaar unstable snapshots of software, and
fraudulently provide them as "stable" in their megafrozen cathedrals.
Not in my experience with ion on various distros, obscure bugs will always
exist - and unless you provide stable branches what is a maintainer meant
to to? The path of least resistance is to take the latest release and test
it for a while, then release it if it's stable on their box(es). As you
don't maintain a "stable" branch they can't rely on you to fix a bug
without introducing more in line with some shiny new feature that you're
preparing for.
So the correct solution here is for you to maintain two branches - Stable
and devel. Fix bugs in stable and make a new stable branch every so often
when there is a feature set you're happy to release (and consider feature
complete and stable). Then abandon the old stable.
How hard can a single integrate be when a bug is found? Then the cathedral
engineers can be confident in what they are using, and you get a limited
set of code to support, which was your original complaint IIRC.
My work machine must "just work"(TM) I don't have time to fiddle with it
The distros don't deliver.
Then try another one - I haven't had any problems recently.
FOSS doesn't deliver. I don't have the time
to fix fonts on every upgrade, and yet FOSS keeps becoming more and more
AA/XML-fascist. I don't have the time for configuring udev brain damage
to my needs. And I don't have the time to compile software when distros
provide old and broken versions, instead of recent ones.
I really don't know what your problem is with AA or udev: Correctly done
AA actually helps text (although it's not always available), udev doesn't
exactly kick up a stink. My machine "just works" (TM).
I only check the version of running software when I'm looking for a
particular feature, or about to go and search online docs / ask for advice.
Yes - because "The Party" is the best placed to package them in a
consistent manner for their users.
And this purported "consistency" comes at an expense of forming a few
powerful central parties that oppress authors
Ah - you're feeling opressed. Then again you seem to feel victimised by
most walks of life if your blog is anything to go by. I think that's
mostly how you view the world.
>I've had enough of the FOSS herd, and how it's destroying everything I
>once thought could be great. I really am universes distant from them.
Not really, you just regard yourself as the "one true way".
If flexible dynamically extensible and non-monoculturist software is
the "one true way", then so be it. For the FOSS herd, Party control,
huge monoliths, anti-aliasing, udev, UTF-8, WIMP, etc. are the one
true way.
non-monoculturist? So you'll support xinerama, anti aliasing, udev now
will you? Rather than declaring them all to be anti-tuomo.
I'd also love to see a WM that encouragees it's users to contribute
back,
Ion is modular. But the moronic FOSS herd does not like modular code:
it wants the original author to maintain their shoddy patches that he
does not care about. That is, once again they want the authors to be
their slave, just like the distros do.
So you're unable to take a shoddy patch and apply the correct fix to your
own code? That seems pretty feeble
--
John Robson
