5 ms·

Why do you call his attitude seriously bad? I agree with him, portability leads to complexity and therefore isn't worth it when you are trying to move fast. You

Why do you call his attitude seriously bad? I agree with him, portability leads to complexity and therefore isn't worth it when you are trying to move fast. You may disagree that OSS should move fast, of course, but why should you want to slow down others? Free software doesn't need to even support free operating systems, for that matter. I'm sure that there are Windows-only apps that are F/OSS, though I don't know of any off-hand. Of course the systemd developers don't need to support any other OS to write "Free Desktop" software, any more then the FreeBSD developers shouldn't feel compelled to port their filesystems, init-system, or anything else to Linux.

Sanddancer 12y ago
Because he's a developer for more than Linux services, he's also a developer for software like PulseAudio, which is supposedly meant to be kernel-agnostic. That is why I said Free Desktop software, not Free software. If he wants to restrict his viewpoint to the Linux kernel, that's his problem, but if he does, then he needs to stop pretending that he cares about Free Desktop environments and state that he's a Linux Desktop developer.
- emmelaich 12y ago
  > PulseAudio, which is supposedly meant to be kernel-agnostic Was this agnosticism part of the design? And even if it was -- I suspect his experience has altered his view on it.
vezzy-fnord 12y ago
It's not so much his opposition to portability that bothers me personally, which I personally disagree with and think that it should be strived for to a reasonable degree. Rather, it's his patently false and almost obnoxiously smug view of the BSDs as these slow-moving operating systems that simply follow Linux's trail, and his deeper implications of forking being negative and that Linux should play a game of catching up against OS X and Windows instead of doing its own thing. Then his reasoning against portability seems self-defeating. He says that "i need to reach customers using windows" is a good reason, in which case you can substitute "windows" with any OS and have a purportedly valid reason for portability. Not living in an arrogant monoculture that seriously believes you're leading the pack and everyone else is biting your dust sounds like another good reason.
teacup50 12y ago
> You may disagree that OSS should move fast, of course, but why should you want to slow down others? This is a nonsense false dichotomy.
- not_with_retard 12y ago
  A herd is only as fast as their slowest member.

Sanddancer 12y ago

Because he's a developer for more than Linux services, he's also a developer for software like PulseAudio, which is supposedly meant to be kernel-agnostic. That is why I said Free Desktop software, not Free software. If he wants to restrict his viewpoint to the Linux kernel, that's his problem, but if he does, then he needs to stop pretending that he cares about Free Desktop environments and state that he's a Linux Desktop developer.

emmelaich 12y ago
> PulseAudio, which is supposedly meant to be kernel-agnostic Was this agnosticism part of the design? And even if it was -- I suspect his experience has altered his view on it.

vezzy-fnord 12y ago

It's not so much his opposition to portability that bothers me personally, which I personally disagree with and think that it should be strived for to a reasonable degree. Rather, it's his patently false and almost obnoxiously smug view of the BSDs as these slow-moving operating systems that simply follow Linux's trail, and his deeper implications of forking being negative and that Linux should play a game of catching up against OS X and Windows instead of doing its own thing. Then his reasoning against portability seems self-defeating. He says that "i need to reach customers using windows" is a good reason, in which case you can substitute "windows" with any OS and have a purportedly valid reason for portability. Not living in an arrogant monoculture that seriously believes you're leading the pack and everyone else is biting your dust sounds like another good reason.

teacup50 12y ago

> You may disagree that OSS should move fast, of course, but why should you want to slow down others? This is a nonsense false dichotomy.

not_with_retard 12y ago
A herd is only as fast as their slowest member.