4 ms·

I researched it plenty, and since your comment can't point out factual errors in my post, I'll just assume you're a hypocrite. And yes, they embrace and extend

by zedshaw 16y ago

I researched it plenty, and since your comment can't point out factual errors in my post, I'll just assume you're a hypocrite. And yes, they embrace and extend. Embrace is taking the package in the first place. Extend is carving it up and patching it so that other companies that choose Debian are forced to either work around their quirks or accept them. That's the exact classic definition.

cmsj 16y ago
In FOSS we call this "branch and patch" ;) But seriously, all distros patch things, they have to to make them work well together on the platform in question or to get the features/fixes they need. Look at how much RHEL patches the kernel, or Ubuntu patches GNOME.
- blasdel 16y ago
  Red Hat backports new drivers and features to ancient kernels because their customers use binary drivers, and Linux does not maintain a stable ABI. It's a shitty but completely respectable position to be in. Canonical forks Gnome because Novell and a cadre of adolescents in western europe still technically control the project. Ubuntu will win eventually and this will stop being an issue. Sane distros patch upstream just enough to make the software build and work. Debian does it to fulfill their ideological goals.
  - cmsj 16y ago
    RH ships older kernels because they release relatively infrequently, and they've had time to QA them (the RH kernel test suite is huge and they run considerable stress tests). They backport features and drivers and fixes because their customers want the stability of well QA'd kernels and the support of newer server hardware and the benefits of fixes made later. One of the older RHELs even went so far as to backport entire subsystems from 2.6 into a 2.4 kernel because they felt overall 2.6 stability was insufficient for their needs. Specific grips with your assertions aside, I think you are too quick to dismiss the ideological goals of FOSS projects - the entire FOSS ecosystem is afterall founded on some pretty seriously ideological goals, particularly Free Software. Open Source exists to dampen these goals and I suspect that a lot of folks now involved in this world are just interested in forking ruby software from github to run on their Mac ;) Disclaimers: I own a Mac, but Linux has been my desktop/server OS of choice for the last decade, and I work as a sysadmin for a Linux distro company. I also write some software that's packaged in most of the distros now, so I feel self-entitled to see this from several very relevant perspectives ;)
adambyrtek 16y ago
Unfortunately this research isn't visible in your rant, and it's not about factual errors. I didn't notice any effort to understand the situation better, for example by speaking with people involved (like the developer in question). But even if you did that, it looks like you intentionally avoided presenting the other point of view, instead of that you assumed upfront that the only reason is pure evilness. This is simply not a very convincing argument. If you posted this at oppugn.us I wouldn't say a word, but I assumed that sheddingbikes.com is a place for more polished stuff. PS. Debian is a loosely coupled group of more or less skilled volunteers with very little oversight and no business motivation. Debian has its flaws, but I see nothing in common with Microsoft.

by zedshaw 16y ago

cmsj 16y ago

In FOSS we call this "branch and patch" ;) But seriously, all distros patch things, they have to to make them work well together on the platform in question or to get the features/fixes they need. Look at how much RHEL patches the kernel, or Ubuntu patches GNOME.

blasdel 16y ago
Red Hat backports new drivers and features to ancient kernels because their customers use binary drivers, and Linux does not maintain a stable ABI. It's a shitty but completely respectable position to be in. Canonical forks Gnome because Novell and a cadre of adolescents in western europe still technically control the project. Ubuntu will win eventually and this will stop being an issue. Sane distros patch upstream just enough to make the software build and work. Debian does it to fulfill their ideological goals.
- cmsj 16y ago
  RH ships older kernels because they release relatively infrequently, and they've had time to QA them (the RH kernel test suite is huge and they run considerable stress tests). They backport features and drivers and fixes because their customers want the stability of well QA'd kernels and the support of newer server hardware and the benefits of fixes made later. One of the older RHELs even went so far as to backport entire subsystems from 2.6 into a 2.4 kernel because they felt overall 2.6 stability was insufficient for their needs. Specific grips with your assertions aside, I think you are too quick to dismiss the ideological goals of FOSS projects - the entire FOSS ecosystem is afterall founded on some pretty seriously ideological goals, particularly Free Software. Open Source exists to dampen these goals and I suspect that a lot of folks now involved in this world are just interested in forking ruby software from github to run on their Mac ;) Disclaimers: I own a Mac, but Linux has been my desktop/server OS of choice for the last decade, and I work as a sysadmin for a Linux distro company. I also write some software that's packaged in most of the distros now, so I feel self-entitled to see this from several very relevant perspectives ;)

adambyrtek 16y ago

Unfortunately this research isn't visible in your rant, and it's not about factual errors. I didn't notice any effort to understand the situation better, for example by speaking with people involved (like the developer in question). But even if you did that, it looks like you intentionally avoided presenting the other point of view, instead of that you assumed upfront that the only reason is pure evilness. This is simply not a very convincing argument. If you posted this at oppugn.us I wouldn't say a word, but I assumed that sheddingbikes.com is a place for more polished stuff. PS. Debian is a loosely coupled group of more or less skilled volunteers with very little oversight and no business motivation. Debian has its flaws, but I see nothing in common with Microsoft.