4 ms·

>I can't help but wonder how anything ever even gets done on this project Slowly, methodically, and with minimal user impact. As mentioned at the end of the a

by Liquix 5y ago

>I can't help but wonder how anything ever even gets done on this project Slowly, methodically, and with minimal user impact. As mentioned at the end of the article, what first appears a waste of time for a small issue could also be seen as a beautiful illustration of the democratic process that makes Debian so stable/widely adopted.

dangerface 5y ago
> Slowly, methodically, and with minimal user impact. I am confused. Isn't the article about an individual just randomly deciding to deprecate which and the resulting fallout that impacted all of Debians users?
overgard 5y ago
And yet they destabilized things by adding the deprecation/trying to get rid of it. And what even was the point of that?
- Rygian 5y ago
  They<the package maintainer> ≠ They<the committee>
- 2muchcoffeeman 5y ago
  They also mentioned how this could happen at the end of the article. In the end they are working on a distro with certain ideals and this illustrates how they can achieve things with their ideals in mind.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- assbuttbuttass 5y ago
  Only in unstable
- jjoonathan 5y ago
  They destabilize it less than other packaging ecosystems. I tried Manjaro the other day -- out of the box, wake from sleep was broken, bluetooth was broken, and 3/3 printers were broken. I eventually got sleep working with an older kernel version, I got bluetooth working with config file hacking, and I got the printers working with CUPS wrangling -- but on Ubuntu, all of this Just Worked for me. That's the point of it.
  - overgard 5y ago
    I don't see how deprecating "which" helps any of that, or any stability in general.
- cpuguy83 5y ago
  On Debian "unstable".
throwaway984393 5y ago
Slowly is right. Every time they release a package it's 2 years after the source code was published.
cryptonector 5y ago
Removing which(1) is NOT "minimal user impact". Evidently it's also not minimal maintainer impact. All this sturm und drang of which(1) is completely unjustified and far exceeds the work of including that BSD option or deciding to not include it.

by Liquix 5y ago

dangerface 5y ago

> Slowly, methodically, and with minimal user impact. I am confused. Isn't the article about an individual just randomly deciding to deprecate which and the resulting fallout that impacted all of Debians users?

overgard 5y ago

And yet they destabilized things by adding the deprecation/trying to get rid of it. And what even was the point of that?

Rygian 5y ago
They<the package maintainer> ≠ They<the committee>
2muchcoffeeman 5y ago
They also mentioned how this could happen at the end of the article. In the end they are working on a distro with certain ideals and this illustrates how they can achieve things with their ideals in mind.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
assbuttbuttass 5y ago
Only in unstable
jjoonathan 5y ago
They destabilize it less than other packaging ecosystems. I tried Manjaro the other day -- out of the box, wake from sleep was broken, bluetooth was broken, and 3/3 printers were broken. I eventually got sleep working with an older kernel version, I got bluetooth working with config file hacking, and I got the printers working with CUPS wrangling -- but on Ubuntu, all of this Just Worked for me. That's the point of it.
- overgard 5y ago
  I don't see how deprecating "which" helps any of that, or any stability in general.
cpuguy83 5y ago
On Debian "unstable".

throwaway984393 5y ago

Slowly is right. Every time they release a package it's 2 years after the source code was published.

cryptonector 5y ago

Removing which(1) is NOT "minimal user impact". Evidently it's also not minimal maintainer impact. All this sturm und drang of which(1) is completely unjustified and far exceeds the work of including that BSD option or deciding to not include it.