Page 6 of 10 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 97

Thread: Gentoo Developers Unhappy, Fork udev

  1. #51
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,711

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MismatchedShoes View Post
    I can't tell about the fork itself, all I'm saying is forking udev is a good thing; some devs are having a pain extracting udev from systemd to have it working on their distro, this might be helpful for them. If systemd is better, it will win on its own merits (for the moment, I have to admit I'm still waiting for a systemd implementation that make DHCPCD start correctly at every boot - maybe I'm cursed...).
    I am not sure anyone proposed to help (or takeover from) Kay with the maintenance instead of forking it. Anyway the whole situation will sort itself out. The good thing with the Linux ecosystem is that darwins law works (and i don't write this to bash the fork).



    PS
    Use network manager. Its fast and will just work.

  2. #52
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    319

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MismatchedShoes View Post
    I'm sorry, but you shouldn't take it personal (and then blame Canonical...).
    I don't like either approach; I think it's a problem when too few people are providing too many critical components, it gives them way too much power... providing a project like udev, and then have it merged with an another project is bad attitude; maybe it forced some distributions to switch to systemd?
    The problem is in your last sentence: Linux and all related projects should be community projects, not guided by some company's agenda, whatever the company is.
    The thing is RH doesn't drive developer directions really. I know its probably hard to understand unless you work here.

    Its not personal, or blaming Canonical. Its just that people seem to think that the way C work on stuff, with Mark setting the direction is how every company works.

    The RH "agenda" is mostly set by what its developer chose to work on. We hire developers because they work on stuff that interests the company and we want them to continue doing so. There isn't some internal memo directing everyone to work on things like systemd, if someone else hired people to work on this stuff to increase the maintainership, we'd be happier a lot of the time. udev was started by a Novell employee, maintained by another Novell employee, the Novell employee moved to Red Hat, the person hasn't changed agenda. When they worked for Novell they worked closely with Lennart, and now they work for RH they work closely with Lennart. RH isn't forcing them to do anything, which is what your posting reads like.

    Dave.

  3. #53

    Default

    NetworkManager was already installed... All distro I tried had the same problem (frugalware, arch, fedora, mageia...), buggy driver maybe? Never wasted time on this... I think systemd was adopted too early.
    When it comes to udev, I don't know if a lot of maintenance was still needed or if they just decided to go an on new project because udev was quite mature and they were looking for some "coding excitement"...

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,711

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by log0 View Post
    Well, you know what they say: “Opinions are like assholes; everyone's got one.” So the only opinion that really counts will be your own.

    And being negative about a fork, really? It is open source for Lord's sake. Go ahead and fork the shit out of it.

    Well on technical matters people that have knowledge on the subject are more likely to tell you the right thing. It's not something like gay marriage or something. I wouldn't listen to airlied for something like ie cooking (don't know if he has any cooking skills, just use it as an example) but if it was something related to linux graphics he would probably be one of the first persons to ask.

  5. #55

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by airlied View Post
    The thing is RH doesn't drive developer directions really. I know its probably hard to understand unless you work here.

    Its not personal, or blaming Canonical. Its just that people seem to think that the way C work on stuff, with Mark setting the direction is how every company works.

    The RH "agenda" is mostly set by what its developer chose to work on. We hire developers because they work on stuff that interests the company and we want them to continue doing so. There isn't some internal memo directing everyone to work on things like systemd, if someone else hired people to work on this stuff to increase the maintainership, we'd be happier a lot of the time. udev was started by a Novell employee, maintained by another Novell employee, the Novell employee moved to Red Hat, the person hasn't changed agenda. When they worked for Novell they worked closely with Lennart, and now they work for RH they work closely with Lennart. RH isn't forcing them to do anything, which is what your posting reads like.

    Dave.

    I'm just saying pieces seem to fit together... don't you agree? I would like a Red Hat dev to start working on a new 3D Minesweeper then!
    "Agenda" was a strong word, I admit it; Red Hat is a company, and I don't think they are paying all their devs to simply make the world a better place... which is normal for a company.

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Basement
    Posts
    389

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by log0 View Post
    And being negative about a fork, really? It is open source for Lord's sake. Go ahead and fork the shit out of it.
    Making code available under GPL and sharing the complete commit log implies that you are more than happy to be forked. So the udev maintainers doesnt disapprove of this. Whats really wrong her is not the fork per se, it is the motivation and means. Starting out by deleting any copyright reference to the original authors is not cool. It even makes Gentoo as awhole look bad.

    Of course this fork will die. If the forksters really had the talent and time to do this they would have jumped right in at the moment the merge was announced. That would be like half a year ago!

    Forking is easy, just as easy a going shopping.

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    272

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by funkSTAR View Post
    +1

    A quote from http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux....26/focus=81281:

    [...]

    COPYRIGHT

    I think this issue is best dealt with on the side - it has no bearing
    on any of the really contentious points here.

    I note that the owners of the copyright on udev have announced to the
    world that (emphasis mine):
    You may modify your copy or copies of the Library or ANY PORTION OF
    IT, thus forming a work based on the Library, and copy and distribute
    such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above,
    provided that you also meet all of these conditions...

    None of those conditions included keeping the copyright line intact.
    [...]
    A thread on Google+ about this, started by Lennart Poettering:
    https://plus.google.com/115547683951...ts/dARyF4UbXzf

    Most who responded to the g+ thread above, agree that removing the previous copyright notices is not right.
    Last edited by Fenrin; 11-20-2012 at 05:08 AM.

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    505

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by funkSTAR View Post
    Making code available under GPL and sharing the complete commit log implies that you are more than happy to be forked. So the udev maintainers doesnt disapprove of this. Whats really wrong her is not the fork per se, it is the motivation and means. Starting out by deleting any copyright reference to the original authors is not cool. It even makes Gentoo as awhole look bad.

    Of course this fork will die. If the forksters really had the talent and time to do this they would have jumped right in at the moment the merge was announced. That would be like half a year ago!

    Forking is easy, just as easy a going shopping.
    Oh, come on. It was just a pull request from a dude who did it without understanding the implications. It wasn't even accepted afaik and I don't see how this would make "Gentoo as awhole look bad". All I see is a few dudes being seriously pissed due to the fork and looking for something to bitch at. Which is kinda entertaining on its own.

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    505

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 89c51 View Post
    Well on technical matters people that have knowledge on the subject are more likely to tell you the right thing. It's not something like gay marriage or something. I wouldn't listen to airlied for something like ie cooking (don't know if he has any cooking skills, just use it as an example) but if it was something related to linux graphics he would probably be one of the first persons to ask.
    This sounds like appeal to authority. Even if someone has knowledge on the subject, what exactly makes you think that he is more likely to tell you the right thing?

  10. #60

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by airlied View Post
    The thing is RH doesn't drive developer directions really. I know its probably hard to understand unless you work here.

    Its not personal, or blaming Canonical. Its just that people seem to think that the way C work on stuff, with Mark setting the direction is how every company works.

    The RH "agenda" is mostly set by what its developer chose to work on. We hire developers because they work on stuff that interests the company and we want them to continue doing so. There isn't some internal memo directing everyone to work on things like systemd, if someone else hired people to work on this stuff to increase the maintainership, we'd be happier a lot of the time. udev was started by a Novell employee, maintained by another Novell employee, the Novell employee moved to Red Hat, the person hasn't changed agenda. When they worked for Novell they worked closely with Lennart, and now they work for RH they work closely with Lennart. RH isn't forcing them to do anything, which is what your posting reads like.

    Dave.
    Would you elaborate on what you mean by working closely with Lennart? Lennart Poettering's first commit occurred in 2006 and his second commit occurred in 2009. His participation seems to be fairly recent given that udev is 9 years old.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •