3 ms·

I sympathize with frustration at poor software packaging, but the proposed solution seems completely disproportionate to the offense. I also don't see any real

I sympathize with frustration at poor software packaging, but the proposed solution seems completely disproportionate to the offense. I also don't see any real evidence presented for the assertion that Debian's policies are based on a corrupt motive. What OS is actually pure and innocent of technical flaws and bad policies? If I recall, openSuse is in bed with Microsoft, Ubuntu fails to contribute code to important projects, Fedora is really just Red Hat's beta testing, etc. One of the pains of open source software is that things you write will probably be messed up in lots of ways by other people. If seeing software packaged or modified in ways you don't like makes you angry and advocate retaliation, is that really consistent with the philosophy of a free software license?

blasdel 16y ago
The efforts of both Zed and Debian are based on the same corrupt motive: self-satisfaction As the upstream developer, Zed wants to make sure that his software is distributed in a manner that is useful to people and actually works and shit. This gives him jollies. As the distributors, the Debian contributors want to fullfil ideological goals, fit everything into their neat hierarchy, assuage neckbeard sysadmins that the version number is sufficiently ancient (not that the software is, given the distro patches), pretend to care about people running it on the PA-RISC port of Debian GNU/kFreeBSD, wank about licensing, and reach consensus. This gives self-important teenagers and manchildren all kinds of joillies.
- Mod_daniel 16y ago
  I can't believe this getting upvoted. I wonder how much software you use every single day thats created and maintained by "self-important teenagers and manchildren".