Re: Is missing SysV-init support a bug?

2016-10-18 Thread Xen

Not subscribed so this will break threading.


On 2016-10-17 at 17:53, Bart Schouten wrote:



I would consider that bigotry as SystemD is short pretty much for
System Daemon.



While this is a reasonable point, it doesn't invalidate Nikolas' point:
that the people behind the systemd project A: do not consider it to be
spelled that way (and, yes, capitalization is part of correct spelling,
at least when it comes to names), B: are likely to perceive the refusal
to spell it in the way which they see as correct to be a sign of
hostility, and C: are likely to react accordingly to that perceived
hostility.


If that is the case then they have enbedded hostility into their name 
simply becaus eit offends normal grammar roles.


If ou are ygoing to name your son "john" and then insist that everyone 
write your name in lowercase, you are going to have issues.


*every software out there is going to capitazlize the first letter
*people all over will refuse to write it with a lowercase only.

*proper names (proper nouns) are written by default in our languages 
with an upeer case initial latter. This breaks grammaticasl rules and 
idiomatic rules.


I mean, what is the intent here? To stir up trouble reagrdless?

You can claim that I am the deviant here, but that is not so. These 
authors apparently willingly disrupt natural language flow in a language 
that has upper case and lower case letters. What about German? Even 
regular nouns are capitalized and you want to write it with lowercase.


Apparently Lennart Poettering himself wants the name to be lowercased 
(he wrote the section on the webpage himself, he told me) (that 
references the spellin0 but with all due respect, your language skills 
completely suck if youinsist on writing it lowercased even when writing 
text athat is supposed to be flowing prose.


It's really cute if you can use monomspaced font in your text when all 
the rest is sans-serif, you know, so it doesn't trouble you so much, but 
these are emails.


We have no markup here, it is all monospace, or whatever you ahve.

I mean Lennart is a nice guy when you respond nicely to him and it is 
pretty nice to talk to him but this is not about him, he doesn't need to 
write the words that I use, nor are you by definition "his people", itÅ› 
as if we are now no longer allowed *anywhere* to write it the way we 
want, another dictatorship? If it concerns him (or his team, fine). 
Whyshould it concern me the rest of the time?


I should suffer unreadable text because Lennart or someone else has a 
pecularity about it? I rather doubt he is a guy like that, you know, 
that we would care what other epople do at the other side of the 
universie, to him.


But more importantly it makes me question the validity of the Debian 
project if it identifies with SystemD so much that IT becomes hostile 
when the name of its components (or one of its components, I was meaning 
to write) is written in the "wrong" way. That means you are no longer 
independent people and that's what worries me.



Without taking sides on the question at hand: do you, then, spell the
name of the distribution as DebIan?


Is that the most reasonable capitalisation of that name?

I didn't even know what it stood for, I must say.

But you know full well that people would tire of writing DebIan within a 
minute, and coincidentally, Debian is the propr form of a proper noun in 
our language. Most words that are written as ca combination of two tend 
to become a single noun: Facebook, Wikipedia, it is way too annoying to 
write it with two capitals. Midway, at least.


But Systemd is not a word, and System is a word, and it stands to reason 
that you would write either systemd or SystemD. Nothing else makes 
sense. So then if you need to use capitals to make the text stand out 
more you use SystemD just like SystemV (or System V) used to be writen. 
This stands to reason. *I* can't help it that the name conflicts with 
and offends natural language as we write it. *I* can't hep it that the 
name interferes with normal grammatical rules. I did not choose the 
name, why should I suffer for it?


And I think it is just pretty change if you would go so far as to make 
this a point of contention which makes me feel you have other issues.


Mister the Wanderer, maybe your signature is meaningful here ;-). Or at 
least, reasonable ;-0).


By the way, again people manage to make a mountain out of a molehill 
which means to me they really have nothing better to do than this and it 
maens to me they are wasting their time on what they *are* doing.




Re: Debian does not have customers

2016-09-21 Thread Xen

The Wanderer schreef op 21-09-2016 4:58:


A closed bug is presumptively a fixed bug (because bugs which have been
fixed get closed).

An open bug is presumptively a non-fixed bug.

Therefore, to close a bug which has not been fixed is to pretend that
the problem reported in that bug has been fixed, i.e., does not
currently exist.

Therefore, to close a bug which has not been fixed is to attempt to 
hide
the problem reported in that bug, by making it appear as though that 
bug

has been fixed.


This is just very well put.



Russ has provided a rationale for why leaving insufficient-data bugs
open is not a good idea for many kinds of projects, and I believe for
why Debian would be one of them; I'm not sure I necessarily accept that
rationale, but it is a solid one. That doesn't invalidate the above
logic, however, only explain why it may not be able to prevail in the
circumstances which we have to live under.


In reponse to Russ also,


Metaphorically speaking, or sematically speaking, if you close something 
you terminate discussion about it. If you "close a chapter of a book" 
then it is past, it is water under the bridge. To properly redirect the 
bug to some other place, there would have to be a closed state that 
would prolongate its existence in another way, namely to direct it to a 
different structure or different entity that could take better care of 
the bug or issue.


"wontfix" and "works-for-me" are by themselves rather hostile.

Bugzilla itself (regular Bugzilla, that also uses these things) is in 
itself a rather hostile thing e.g. compared to Jira.


I just want to relay that I think the Wanderer is right in his or her 
characterisation and assessment of what a "closed bug" does to someone.


I venture on paths where bugs are closed by lazy people that just don't 
want to work on the bug ;-) and some of those people work for Red Hat. 
It is simply often used as a moral instrument instead of a technical 
one.


I would simply suggest that in principle you keep bugs open until it no 
longer exists. But that you introduce a different open state other than 
closed that will communicate "has been looked at, is not capable of 
being solved right now". This could be "pending" or "held" or "kept". 
Because "closed" indeed communicates "not-a-bug" or "works-for-me" or 
"invalid" or "fixed" and not "frozen".