Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Systemd 197 Brings "Quite Some Cool New Stuff"

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by funkSTAR View Post
    Here is a clue for you; gtk+ is not some CA shit like crap-Qt. So go pull your own head out of your ass. Thank you..

    Oh yeah and GNU is a whole different story than the commercial piece of shit software called Qt.
    http://lwn.net/Articles/529522/
    Translation: CLA's are only acceptable for projects funkSTAR likes.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
      Overall, maintenance burden was increased because a fork was inevitable. The maintenance burden was reduced for the systemd guys but increased for the community as a whole by making udev depend on systemd in a "take it or leave it" proposition, typical of walled gardens in fact. Maintenance is one thing, but intentionally breaking compatibility that people rely on is a hostile act.
      In kernel land it is quite clear distro stuff must stay out of mainline because of the maintenance burden, distros ships their own patched kernels. Same goes for systemd. Following your logic Linux is a walled garden too. How stupid is that!?

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Ancurio View Post
        Have you ever developed anything, at all, in your life?
        Yes. And refused to work on CA shit.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by TheBlackCat View Post
          Translation: CLA's are only acceptable for projects funkSTAR likes.
          Please clarify which CLA crippled I like, because honestly I cant name many.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by funkSTAR View Post
            In kernel land it is quite clear distro stuff must stay out of mainline because of the maintenance burden, distros ships their own patched kernels. Same goes for systemd. Following your logic Linux is a walled garden too. How stupid is that!?
            He has a point. If a piece of software works one way but a small group of people need it to work another way, that has no value for the core product, then that patch should be maintained seperate from core because otherwise you get what systemd had...lots of #IFDEF's that make the code harder to read and harder to follow. Also raises compatibility concerns that direct developers of core shouldn't have to worry about.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by funkSTAR View Post
              In kernel land it is quite clear distro stuff must stay out of mainline because of the maintenance burden, distros ships their own patched kernels. Same goes for systemd. Following your logic Linux is a walled garden too. How stupid is that!?
              udev is not distro-specific.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Ericg View Post
                He has a point. If a piece of software works one way but a small group of people need it to work another way, that has no value for the core product, then that patch should be maintained seperate from core because otherwise you get what systemd had...lots of #IFDEF's that make the code harder to read and harder to follow. Also raises compatibility concerns that direct developers of core shouldn't have to worry about.
                He doesn't have a point. We're talking about changes which Linus called 'some "crazy mode" where they have made changes that were known to be problematic, and are pure and utter stupidity'. Udev was a distro-agnostic technology, which was then tied with systemd without ability to choose. Trivial and unnecessary patches were made just to make it harder for non-systemd distros to BUILD the thing.

                This has nothing to do with distro-specific things in the kernel. funky is just trolling as usual. He just changes the topic when he's caught jumping into his own mouth.

                CA is evil unless somebody other than Qt does it. That's his official stance.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
                  He doesn't have a point. We're talking about changes which Linus called 'some "crazy mode" where they have made changes that were known to be problematic, and are pure and utter stupidity'. Udev was a distro-agnostic technology, which was then tied with systemd without ability to choose. Trivial and unnecessary patches were made just to make it harder for non-systemd distros to BUILD the thing.
                  You can still run udev without systemd, granted you have to pull in all of systemd to get the udev source but you can choose to build JUST udev and no systemd components if you want to.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
                    He doesn't have a point. We're talking about changes which Linus called 'some "crazy mode" where they have made changes that were known to be problematic, and are pure and utter stupidity'.
                    No not really. You are the only one bringing this dead horse to the market. Udev is maintained within systemd for a reason you know. Less maintenance.

                    If you disagree woth the current and former maintainers desicion then go back in time and take over their jobs. Im pretty sure you have the time and talent to do it, NOT.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Ericg View Post
                      He has a point. If a piece of software works one way but a small group of people need it to work another way, that has no value for the core product, then that patch should be maintained seperate from core because otherwise you get what systemd had...lots of #IFDEF's that make the code harder to read and harder to follow. Also raises compatibility concerns that direct developers of core shouldn't have to worry about.
                      Yes. The ugly patches, the bug reports, the compability issues, the bikeshedding, the forksters and flamers all belong to the distros desiring crazy shit. Not the generic upstream.

                      It is that simple really.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
                        CA is evil unless somebody other than Qt does it. That's his official stance.
                        It would be quite easy for you to show everybody a quote or link where I state such opions. If you cant do that you might look like a idiot desperately trying to defend Qt despite the fact it is apiece of stinking commercial shit sold as closed source by a company who clearly moves to diverse Qt even further from linux.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by funkSTAR View Post
                          It would be quite easy for you to show everybody a quote or link where I state such opions. If you cant do that you might look like a idiot desperately trying to defend Qt despite the fact it is apiece of stinking commercial shit sold as closed source by a company who clearly moves to diverse Qt even further from linux.
                          Right here:

                          Originally posted by funkSTAR View Post
                          Oh yeah and GNU is a whole different story than the commercial piece of shit software called Qt.
                          http://lwn.net/Articles/529522/
                          You flat-out say the CA is acceptable if you like the project.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by TheBlackCat View Post
                            You flat-out say the CA is acceptable if you like the project.
                            No! And for further clarification; Fuck NO! That link simply states CA is a very sensitive area and the gain is really not worth it. And mind you this is CA to GNU who promised to abstain from commercial abuse. Still this approach is highly controversial and considered RUDE.

                            being a commercial shit house like Digia who give a fuck about linux and freedom is making CA a billion times worse! CA is shit and a walled garden. EOD.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by funkSTAR View Post
                              No! And for further clarification; Fuck NO! That link simply states CA is a very sensitive area and the gain is really not worth it. And mind you this is CA to GNU who promised to abstain from commercial abuse. Still this approach is highly controversial and considered RUDE.

                              being a commercial shit house like Digia who give a fuck about linux and freedom is making CA a billion times worse! CA is shit and a walled garden. EOD.
                              Qt being a "piece of stinking commercial shit" is the only reason I am able to code something in it on Linux,
                              and with almost no further work compile it nicely for windows/mac, unlike the linux-centered gtk.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Ancurio View Post
                                Qt being a "piece of stinking commercial shit" is the only reason I am able to code something in it on Linux,
                                and with almost no further work compile it nicely for windows/mac, unlike the linux-centered gtk.
                                tried wxwidgets ?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X