3 ms·
> Well, no. They didn't 'fight' for that, they complained about it. For a while they decided that LVFS wasn't a right fit and went with their own tool and infra
by volta83 5y ago
> Well, no. They didn't 'fight' for that, they complained about it. For a while they decided that LVFS wasn't a right fit and went with their own tool and infrastructure[0].
So why is this a problem ?
If LVFS isn't a right fit, cause its missing a feature, and they prefer to roll their own system instead of submitting a 100 LOC patch, that's kind of up to them ?
- esarbe 5y ago> So why is this a problem ? It's not a problem at all. It just demonstrates that they didn't "fight" for the feature. Not using a service that's offered to you gratis is not a problem at all. Spreading FUD and slandering fellow programmers might be a problem. > that's kind of up to them ? It absolutely is. But they still didn't fight for that. Richard Hughes fought for it.
- volta83 5y agoThanks for clarifying. I enjoyed your post, and the other issues mentioned were easier to follow and understand what you mean. I'm sorry that this happened.
- esarbe 5y agoNo worries! Communication is hard. We misunderstand each other, even if we talk face to face. Text is even harder to parse and it's way easier to make mistakes, both when sending as well as receiving. Thanks for your kindness and understanding!