[nylug-talk] I'm a Gentoo convert.

[Ruben Safir]

On Sun, Mar 04, 2007 at 02:59:54PM -0800, Peter C. Norton wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 04, 2007 at 11:32:55AM -0500, Ruben Safir wrote:
> > This is similar to what I was saying about Apache and the Debian packaging
> > in a prior thread.  In the case of Apache specifically, it is designed to
> > be built and distrubted and customized from source.  
> 
> OK, so unless I'm missing something, are you expecting people to build
> and distribute it from something besides the sources? Maybe from the
> jpgs on the web site?
> 

Its hard to answer you when you get so off topic in a rage like this.
If you narrow your comment or inquiry to the topic that was being
discussed without the personal  stuff flying through the post, then 
I can make a rational response to your comment.   

The topic was Portage and the parallel to the native packaging of Apache.
Both depend heavely on autoconf and well constructed make files to create
a packaging system, one which has an advantage, BTW, of not leaving the
end user in the dark why his stuff is broken when the shared libraries
don't match.



> Why are we still stuck talking about the religion of how to hand
> someone something for free in 2007?

Someone else might be able to make this clearer, but the only religious
topic I mentions was in relationship to Purim.  I wished everyone a happy
Purim.  If that was offense I take it back.  Other than that I'm at a loss at 
what your even refering to.


> 
> The reality is that the software is out there. for the most part it's
> free and as long as you don't get pissy with the author they'll help
> you as much as they can (deferring to the distro when they've
> broken/fixed something). 

Sometimes they do and sometimes they don't and sometimes they tell you
that the code is the documents and sometimes they take the attitude that if
you can't understand the code that you essentially don't deserve to use
the product.

I would strongly disagree with most of these attitudes.  This is not related
to the current thread, so I'm not certain as to why you bring this up.

> 
> Beyond that, why do you (and others) want people to have to buckle
> under and subscribe to a sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-specialization of an
> overall beneficial ideology or else you won't respect their choices?
> This isn't supposed to be about preventing people's choices.

Again, you'll have to explain yourself more clearly here and with less
heat if you want a rational descussion.

> 
> IMO if you didn't write the software and you're not contributing to
> it, you don't get the right to b***h about what gets done with
> it. Leave that to the people who have to deal with it because they
> take responsability for it. Stop talking shit from the gallery.

This is completely unrelated to the thread BUT, its wrong, fundementally wrong
and destructive to Free Software.  Its just plain bad business to ignor the
needs of your user base if you hope for a project to be a success.


Ruben

-- 
http://www.mrbrklyn.com - Interesting Stuff http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software So many immigrant groups have swept through our town that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological proportions in the mind of the world  - RI Safir 1998 http://fairuse.nylxs.com  DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002 "Yeah - I write Free Software...so SUE ME" "The tremendous problem we face is that we are becoming sharecroppers to our own cultural heritage -- we need the ability to participate in our own society." "> I'm an engineer. I choose the best tool for the job, politics be damned.< You must be a stupid engineer then, because politcs and technology have been attacted at the hip since the 1st dynasty in Ancient Egypt.  I guess you missed that one."