4 ms·

Of course they've done technical work, they're a distribution. Of course they have a distribution standard, they're a large committee-driven project. None of th

Of course they've done technical work, they're a distribution. Of course they have a distribution standard, they're a large committee-driven project. None of these are pushing the boundaries as such. I never said anything to the contrary, but rather that those are all secondary to the primary political goals. A distribution having a detailed technical policy does not refute any of this. I don't support Red Hat, either. dpkg's original conception was a tarball-based package management Perl script with rudimentary substring match dependency processing. It evolved as time went on. GNU is the same. Politics first, technology second. They've generally been much better at both, however.

jschwartzi 11y ago
Any time you put more than two people in a room together and ask them to finish something, there will be politics. The only thing you can do is make sure everyone has some goals that are the same as the organization's. In a corporation, this is achieved by paying people to be responsible for certain aspects of the company's operations. In a volunteer organization, this is accomplished by having the people in the organization socialize around the organization. Everyone has their reasons. Some people are motivated by producing beautiful functional code. Others are motivated by the ideals of Free Software. Still others want to use the community to sell hardware. At the end of the day, as long as they're all moving in a similar direction, the movement is successful. Whether or not the movement is a good thing depends on your values and motives.