Op 14-8-2015 om 19:10 schreef Douglas Wegscheid:
That's clearly a lie. You wouldn't say these things if you were really
happy and really convinced it'd be a replacement. That is make believe. In
that case you'd say something like
easy there. that's pretty harsh treatment of other list participants, and
presumptuous to state you know what someone else is thinking/feeling.
I would say that that is the biggest lie ;-). Knowing how another is
feeling is a perfect skill and essence and even requirement of many
branches of sports. It forms the basis of seduction (of women) but also
of knowing what to say and when to say it. It forms the basis of
persuasion, and really of any sort of dealing with people who might have
goals of whatever sort and are manouvring against you or with you.
Knowing how another is feeling is the requirement of knowing how to help
the person, and listening, being quiet and silent and observing,
perceiving, is the essence of knowing how another is feeling.
It is rather the thought that you /can't /know how another is feeling
that is a false belief that is perpetrated and perpetuated amongst
certain classes of professions, mostly, particularly those that deal
with mental health care, to say not the least.
Any person that runs a professional business of some sophistication
(helping clients with their needs) definitely requires knowing how
another is feeling, because otherwise you can't know the person and
cannot create or offer something that the person will really like. You
have to be in tune with another, otherwise you might just as well quit.
It requires to listen and to look, something at which obviously women
are usually better, but anyone can do it really. It requires to wait and
not jump to a conclusion immediately, but also to trust your instincts
and intuitions and go with them.
keeping an employer happy is not an ulterior motive. People like to be able
to pay their bills.
It is ulterior to the project if the project is an open source project
with stated community goals. If then your actual motives are dictated by
your current employer, -- not necessarily saying they are here, THAT
would be presumptuous -- instead of by the community's needs (or the
desire of the product itself to evolve in whatever direction) -- the
creative impetus -- then you could say design choices and commitments
are being made that fly in the face of what everyone else needs, but
which may not be obvious to the casual bystander, who is left to wonder
"why?".
Often in life, when people do things that seem to be outrageously
incomprehensible or from the surface look if it, downright stupid, or
destructive, you may not be in the knowing as to what their true goals
really are. This happens often in politics I believe. You do not know
why a politician is making a certain move. And because he is not telling
you the truth about it, it seems incomprehensible to you that he would
still do that thing given the reasons he cites, because /they are not
his real reasons/. Were you to know his real reasons, everything becomes
logical again.
In this case I also feel that there are personal reasons here for the
version push. That I don't understand really from my position and lack
of knowledge about this all. So what I am saying is that there is a
"why?" that I do not understand really. I can feel that it is there, and
I can feel that there are probably some (?)important people who /really
want it to happen/ but I don't know who they are and where they are
hiding ;-) so to speak, to say it a bit belligerently. (Seriously, I
know English words that I never remember having ever seen).
When Kubuntu had released version 15.04 Jonathan Riddell, the guy who
got so in the dispute with the Ubuntu Community Council (if I may be
allowed to say anything about it as a bystander) ...--- immediately
without pause went to planning for version 15.10. Not a moment to waste,
straight ahead, no reflection, no looking back. I told him to pause, he
said it was not constructive to say that.
What he didn't say and what I didn't know, but what another member told
me ; -) was that he is a full time employee on Kubuntu so given the
nature of his work he would have to perhaps /take days off/ in order to
take a break. He had to stop working his dayjob in order to sit back and
relax and look back! That was the missing piece of information that
explained his behaviour for about 40-60%.
;-).
agreed. but let's be objective about what life is like in the "obsolete
server" space: you aren't typically deploying radically new code there that
introduces new logging dependencies, either! log4j2 requires java 6, I have
a few boxes that don't support that, but very few.
Okay, right. Still I feel the version push is too fast. I don't know
what the reasons are for it. Supposing I wanted to run on older systems,
I might then need to drop Log4j 2 and go with v1 just for a few of those
systems. It's not that I have these outrageous demands on what my
logging needs to do, far from it, probably. It's just that I happen to
be using the newest version, not for its features, but for its
advancement in the API, for example. I would then be given the choice to
either stick completely to e.g. 2.3, which is rotten, being stuck in a
mid-way version is just silly. My own improvements would then be
insensible, what reason would there be to do anything for it?.
Of course its'the same with Kubuntu and Plasma 4 /5 . Developing for KDE
4 gets kinda ....deadening when you are the only one doing it (for
instance). So there'd be another choice:
fork the project and strip away all the higher language versions.
Featuronality. I don't even know what the new version is going to use
that requires java 7?.
I only really saw two things of interest in my quick/non-quick perousal.
One was mult-threaded class loaders, and the other is the diamond
notation for generics. I don't know what else?.
Why is it going to need Java 7?
It is written that Java 7 has already reached EOL back in April. But
still on a general Linux system it is the only thing you can install, at
least on a conservative system like Debian. The Ubuntus probably have
Java 8, for example.
I see a lot of stuff in Java 7 and 8 that I don't understand (yet), but
that doesn't make me say "java 8 is a step backward"; usually I have (and
exercise) the option to ignore changes that I don't yet see the value of. I
could keep writing what I've always written, and appreciate the fact that I
am getting security updates.
Of course yeah, agreed, same. I do believe the Java 8 JDK has become a
much (?) larger download than Java 7. On bad links I am tempted to
search for Java 7 just so my download size is smaller.
Most of the stuff that's been added over time has increased my productivity
immensely once I've invested the time to master it (this is from the
standpoint of someone making a living writing Java since v1.1). For most of
the stuff I do, my customer is happier if I stamp the stuff out quickly,
rather than agonize over every decision from a performance standpoint (for
a lot of stuff, machines are cheaper than programming time). I realize that
is not the case, especially on very large systems; adding more hardware
there gets expen$ive.
That's cool. I would love to learn more about it as well. Currently I 'm
doing the max of what I can digest though and it is not fun. Configuring
a Linux VPS and and all that.
go ahead and just write Java 5 code, compile and run it with 7 or 8, and be
happy!
Of course I can do that but not if my logging library requires greater.
Right? Or should I (be able to) write against slf4j and then run on
older systems by binding to an older version of Log4j?.
