5 ms·

Even if it isn't being maintained, I wish they had changed the name if they were forking or reimplementing without permission. There's a reason trademark law ex

Even if it isn't being maintained, I wish they had changed the name if they were forking or reimplementing without permission. There's a reason trademark law exists and doesn't require registration if you can prove the situation. But yeah, it's a lot harder to fight Red Hat (soon IBM!) over that if the project is inactively maintained and there's no registration. Still, whether legal or not, the name squat is not a good look for Red Hat.

rlpb 7y ago
> I wish they had changed the name if they were forking or reimplementing without permission. Has the name not changed to "pcp", or am I missing something? "pcp dstat" appears to be a command, but that seems like a reasonable abbreviation for "hey pcp, please give me a dstat-like interface". [Edit] Correction. https://github.com/dagwieers/dstat/issues/156 https://github.com/dagwieers/dstat/issues/156 says the following, so there is a compatibility symlink using the name "dstat". However the project name appears to be "pcp-dstat" or "pcp dstat". "Since there had been no meaningful work on the old dstat code in years, github PRs were being ignored, community developers requesting access to help were being ignored, and we have customers using it ... we were asked to make this as seamless a transition as possible, provide that compatibility symlink for /usr/bin/dstat to pcp-dstat, and remove the old package from RHEL and Fedora."
- dagwieers 7y ago
  > community developers requesting access to help were being ignored This is not true, I have not been contacted. I learned from Fedora's decision to replace Dstat with PCP months after it was already decided. So it's not like I have had a choice. The choices I have today are: 1. Continue with a project, while Fedora/RHEL is shipping a tool by the same name (with 90% of my code) 2. Rename the original Dstat project, which would be silly 3. Discontinue the project Option 3 is the path of least resistance. Option 1 and 2 would not bring any joy. At least someone will be paid for maintaining the tool.
  - fooker 7y ago
    GitHub PRs being ignored seems totally true. https://github.com/dagwieers/dstat/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aclosed https://github.com/dagwieers/dstat/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aclos...
    - dagwieers 7y ago
      Sure, and Red Hat being paid for RHEL shipping Dstat for a decade could have helped out. But instead they decided to replace it. And as a result I don't see a point continuing a project with the same name.
      - mehrdadn 7y ago
        >>>> community developers requesting access to help were being ignored >>> This is not true >> GitHub PRs being ignored seems totally true. > Sure, and Red Hat being paid for RHEL shipping Dstat for a decade could have helped out. But instead they decided to replace it. It's one thing to be upset due to a belief that Red Hat/others are at fault, but why lie to make your point?
        dagwieers 7y ago
        Who lied about this ? It's pretty clear we didn't accepted any PRs since December 2016 until Red Hat decided to replace our code, which started early June 2018. That's 18 months. If I am upset about anything, it is this: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1614277#c7 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1614277#c7
        irishsultan 7y ago
        > Who lied about this ? > It's pretty clear we didn't accepted any PRs since December 2016 until Red Hat decided to replace our code, which started early June 2018. That's 18 months. You are asking: "why didn't RH help out", you also didn't accept any pull requests. That surely would answer the question about why they didn't bother with pull request. The question is then, how exactly do you think they have helped?

rlpb 7y ago

> I wish they had changed the name if they were forking or reimplementing without permission. Has the name not changed to "pcp", or am I missing something? "pcp dstat" appears to be a command, but that seems like a reasonable abbreviation for "hey pcp, please give me a dstat-like interface". [Edit] Correction. https://github.com/dagwieers/dstat/issues/156 https://github.com/dagwieers/dstat/issues/156 says the following, so there is a compatibility symlink using the name "dstat". However the project name appears to be "pcp-dstat" or "pcp dstat". "Since there had been no meaningful work on the old dstat code in years, github PRs were being ignored, community developers requesting access to help were being ignored, and we have customers using it ... we were asked to make this as seamless a transition as possible, provide that compatibility symlink for /usr/bin/dstat to pcp-dstat, and remove the old package from RHEL and Fedora."

dagwieers 7y ago
> community developers requesting access to help were being ignored This is not true, I have not been contacted. I learned from Fedora's decision to replace Dstat with PCP months after it was already decided. So it's not like I have had a choice. The choices I have today are: 1. Continue with a project, while Fedora/RHEL is shipping a tool by the same name (with 90% of my code) 2. Rename the original Dstat project, which would be silly 3. Discontinue the project Option 3 is the path of least resistance. Option 1 and 2 would not bring any joy. At least someone will be paid for maintaining the tool.
- fooker 7y ago
  GitHub PRs being ignored seems totally true. https://github.com/dagwieers/dstat/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aclosed https://github.com/dagwieers/dstat/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aclos...
  - dagwieers 7y ago
    Sure, and Red Hat being paid for RHEL shipping Dstat for a decade could have helped out. But instead they decided to replace it. And as a result I don't see a point continuing a project with the same name.
    - mehrdadn 7y ago
      >>>> community developers requesting access to help were being ignored >>> This is not true >> GitHub PRs being ignored seems totally true. > Sure, and Red Hat being paid for RHEL shipping Dstat for a decade could have helped out. But instead they decided to replace it. It's one thing to be upset due to a belief that Red Hat/others are at fault, but why lie to make your point?
      - dagwieers 7y ago
        Who lied about this ? It's pretty clear we didn't accepted any PRs since December 2016 until Red Hat decided to replace our code, which started early June 2018. That's 18 months. If I am upset about anything, it is this: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1614277#c7 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1614277#c7
        irishsultan 7y ago
        > Who lied about this ? > It's pretty clear we didn't accepted any PRs since December 2016 until Red Hat decided to replace our code, which started early June 2018. That's 18 months. You are asking: "why didn't RH help out", you also didn't accept any pull requests. That surely would answer the question about why they didn't bother with pull request. The question is then, how exactly do you think they have helped?