A Vast Majority Of Linux's Input Improvements Are Developed By One Individual

[schmidtbag]

it doesn't work that way. redhat can hire someone who has made himself replacement, that's all. redhat can't tell someone to become replacement

Sure they can, because otherwise that person is fired or put elsewhere. Hutterer's replacement needs to know how to maintain libinput and such, and if he/she can't then someone else will have to. That person being a complete replacement isn't happening overnight, but, he can be replaced if necessary.

[pal666]

Sure they can, because otherwise that person is fired or put elsewhere.

that's how you would run company, not how redhat works. redhat hires experts, not tells people what to do. btw this is why only moron would accuse redhat of developing something. when redhat is left without btrfs devs, redhat switches to xfs

[pal666]

fixed

broken. both ways: gnome is developed by not only redhat and redhat develops not only gnome

[pal666]

Having those things 'thanos-snapped' out of existance would be an overall improvement for enterprise/server Linux (eg, for headless VMs that never run a UI other than bash)....

some windows or macos idiot's dream

[schmidtbag]

that's how you would run company, not how redhat works. redhat hires experts, not tells people what to do. btw this is why only moron would accuse redhat of developing something. when redhat is left without btrfs devs, redhat switches to xfs

Exactly my point... They hire experts. They're not going to put someone in Hutterer's position who doesn't know a thing about what they're doing. That's why if whoever they do hire doesn't know what they're doing, they have the resources to find someone else. How are you not getting this?

[pal666]

Exactly my point... They hire experts. They're not going to put someone in Hutterer's position who doesn't know a thing about what they're doing. That's why if whoever they do hire doesn't know what they're doing, they have the resources to find someone else. How are you not getting this?

how are you not getting that there's no other libinput expert to hire atm? did you read article?

[schmidtbag]

how are you not getting that there's no other libinput expert to hire atm? did you read article?

How are you not getting that it doesn't take a genius to maintain libinput, and that libinput is already in really good shape? If you're an expert in Xserver or Wayland, you can probably figure out how to maintain libinput without mentoring. After all, there are still people pitching in changes to it. Sure, Hutterer is absolutely right that someone should be mentored, since taking precautionary measures is always a smart choice. But my point is the worst-case scenario (where he is unexpectedly unavailable with no trained replacement) will not result in any significant issues. It will not be an ideal situation, but libinput isn't going to suddenly crumble without him.

[cynical]

Hmm, for whatever reason I thought upstart came after systemd. My bad.

That's because of the typical propaganda about Red Hat doing no wrong and Canonical being the devil. Essentially the stuff you are still perpetuating.

Regardless of how bad Gnome 3 was, Unity (which also was pretty broken to start with) was still heavily dependent on it. Rather than make their own fork, Canonical could've just helped Gnome 3 get better and speed up the process. Remember: the reason people gripe about Canonical is because of how many times they fork things. It's not always something as big as Unity or Mir either.
Anyway, I'm aware there were other forks, but to my knowledge, most of them were basically just mashups of different environments. Unity was far more ambitious, and the greatest issue is Canonical actually had the resources to fix Gnome 3. Instead, they just decided to do things their own way. Same applies to Mir.

This is a dumb point. Why doesn't Gnome just fold up shop and help KDE "get better and speed up the process"? Why don't all distributions just fold up and help Debian get better? Maybe it's because they have their own goals, and it's impossible to achieve them without agreement from others unless you own the codebase yourself?

Canonical didn't develop Unity just because "they wanted to do their own thing". They had disagreements with Gnome developers on what should be done, and obviously could not get the changes they wanted done in Gnome for that reason. Even the performance updates that were added recently took months of discussion. The only reason Canonical has changed course now is because they are dropping everything to do with the desktop. This will bite them in the future as they are now at the mercy of the Gnome project. You know that whole "NIH" thing you are complaining about? Yeah, Gnome and Red Hat do that all the time. Except when they do it, people adopt their systems and call it community driven. It's nothing but propaganda.

[schmidtbag]

That's because of the typical propaganda about Red Hat doing no wrong and Canonical being the devil. Essentially the stuff you are still perpetuating.

How exactly am I perpetuating that "propaganda"? I'm not exactly painting RH in a positive light, and I said more positive things about Canonical than I have of RH.
Seeing as you're obviously heavily biased on this situation, part of me questions if you're worth wasting my time on.

This is a dumb point. Why doesn't Gnome just fold up shop and help KDE "get better and speed up the process"? Why don't all distributions just fold up and help Debian get better?

It's a dumb point to you because you're looking at it in the most absurd way possible. My gripe (as well as many others) with Unity is how Canonical was like "Gnome isn't good or stable enough for our needs, so, we're just going to start our own interface from scratch, using parts of Gnome" which is just hypocritical. Had Canonical started a completely fresh new interface that had little to nothing to do with Gnome, I don't think I'd really care because Canonical wasn't wrong that Gnome at the time was flawed, and so was KDE. Unity overall was pretty distinct. But because Unity had Gnome dependencies, they weren't escaping from the problems of Gnome. Meanwhile, they were dividing their own time and resources with their own developments. Had Canonical just focused on Gnome, it would've been in much better shape years sooner. The part that really makes it all come together as "that was stupid" is how Canonical abandoned Unity, even at a time when it was good enough to be found in other distros.
So - my gripe is how Canonical wasted the time and resources of basically everyone who was invested in Gnome or "vanilla" Ubuntu.

Maybe it's because they have their own goals, and it's impossible to achieve them without agreement from others unless you own the codebase yourself?

You know I was saying the exact same thing myself, right? The entire basis behind my argument can be summarized as "fragmentation occurs when people have goals that others do not agree with" (implying when people have the opportunity to, which is very easily possible with FOSS software).

You know that whole "NIH" thing you are complaining about? Yeah, Gnome and Red Hat do that all the time. Except when they do it, people adopt their systems and call it community driven. It's nothing but propaganda.

Huh? I'm not complaining about that. I don't give a shit if Canonical or RH do that; not my problem, since I don't participate in either of their ecosystems and have no intention to in the foreseeable future.

[angrypie]

With no Red Hat and its employees, half of the current Linux userspace wouldn't exist in its current form (gnome, wayland, systemd, dbus, colord, NetworkManager, polkit, sssd, packagekit, kvm).

Is your argument for or against Red Hat-ware?

I hope IBM keeps the Red Hat technique of promoting independent open source projects of which then you build commercial products on top.

The BSDs already fit this niche. Just ask Sony if they aren't happy ripping off BSD-licensed code.