Originally posted by funkSTAR
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Systemd 197 Brings "Quite Some Cool New Stuff"
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Ericg View PostHe 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.
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
-
Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View PostHe 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.All opinions are my own not those of my employer if you know who they are.
Comment
-
Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View PostHe 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'.
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
-
Originally posted by Ericg View PostHe 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.
It is that simple really.
Comment
-
Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View PostCA is evil unless somebody other than Qt does it. That's his official stance.
Comment
-
Originally posted by funkSTAR View PostIt 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.
Originally posted by funkSTAR View PostOh yeah and GNU is a whole different story than the commercial piece of shit software called Qt.
http://lwn.net/Articles/529522/
Comment
-
Originally posted by TheBlackCat View PostYou flat-out say the CA is acceptable if you like the project.
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
-
Originally posted by funkSTAR View PostNo! 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.
and with almost no further work compile it nicely for windows/mac, unlike the linux-centered gtk.
Comment
-
Comment