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

[Peter C. Norton]

On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 01:07:10AM -0500, Ruben Safir wrote:
> 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.   

Regardless of how you mis-interprete exasperated for rage, or personal
for what is directed not just at you but to a class of people that you
represent, or off-topic to where you've brought the topic, read on.
 
> 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.

I've used portage. It's nice, but not my cup of tea. I've used
freebsd. It's nice, but not my cup of tea. I've used netbsd. It's not
too nice, and it's not my cup of tea. I've used openbsd. It's nifty,
but not my cup of tea. Have you used these systems? 

> > 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.

Yes, happy purim. But you wandered off-topic to a trope about how
apache (and by extensions software in general) should be
distributed. Which is religion because it's about belief, not about
how software is distributed or how it's used, but how you want people
to use it.

> > 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.

So... how does that relate to your trope about compiling source
vs. packaging?
 
> 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.

I bring it up as a fait accompi - software packaging is there, yet you
rail against it as though it's something you can stop.

> > 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.

I'm tired of you saying that apache is meant to be distributed as
source, compiled, and then distributed, so don't use packages. How you
write it is illogical. I suppose you mean that it should be downloaded
and built everywhere and anyone doing anything different is wrong, but
everyone's heard it before. If someone wants to do it that way, they
can, but your opinion has been heard, and it's certianly not going to
change the opinion of those who are distributing the software - either
the source or the package.
 
> > 
> > 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.

It's absolutely related. If you're not helping, find a way to help
(which you do well). Part of helping that's difficult for a lot of
people, however, is to not snipe at silly things that aren't problems
and treat it as though it's a big deal and to keep boring everyone
else wtih it.

-Peter

-- 
The 5 year plan:
In five years we'll make up another plan.
Or just re-use this one.