Re: [Gnu-arch-users] fedora core 2 will include subversion (and not gnu arch)

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Mon, 2004-02-23 at 12:20, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Sun, 2004-02-22 at 18:58, Tom Lord wrote:
> >   It _has_, in
> > fact, helped at least some people to critically examine the Big
> > Picture of how their labor as free software hackers relates to the
> > rest of their world.
> 
> I agree that distributed revision control has an impact, but I think you
> overestimate the uniqueness of Arch in that respect.

I read Tom's comment above as 'the arch mailing list community has
helped...'. But anyway, the point is that raising issues directly
relevant to ourselves as Free Softwar hackers, and how we can maintain
production, is emminently relevant.

> >   It _has_, in fact, led to some handy recipe
> > exchanges, musical interest exchanges, and more.  I am against any
> > kind of sterilization of g-a-u content to race to the bottom of some
> > least common denominator level of content.
> 
> But it's precisely at the least common denominator where this list will
> be most productive, because we will be working from our shared basis,
> instead of spending our time on offtopic flamewars.

I disagree. Those who don't want to involve in flamewars can ignore
them. Those too undisciplined to do so deserve there time consumption.

And much/some of the non-arch stuff is not necessarily a flamewar, but
'intense discussion', and that which is unequivocally essential to
"keeping the flame alive" (smiley)

> > (And it _has_, in fact, pissed off or otherwise offended a sufficient
> > number of RH employees that they are, at least approximately,
> > self-excluded as a group from the arch community.  But that's a good
> > thing, in the long run.  
> 
> Wow.  That's an extraordinarily hostile and destructive point of view. 
> I can't even think of how you can imagine this to be a good thing.

That statement should not be taken separately to the below - it renders
it out of context - perhaps Tom should have put semi-colons instead of
full stops, but perhaps we can read it that way anyway.

The "good thing" is not that they are (self) excluded, but that their
awareness to the fact is raised. This should have been obvious.

> > Not because we don't want them in the
> > community -- we do -- but because this contradiction between where
> > they're at and where it makes sense for them to be is highlighted and
> > explicitly presented to them.   Most people don't like to be
> > hyporcites and making it harder for them to be so unconsciously is a
> > libertarian approach to helping them out of that state.)
> 
> I think you'll find that most of them simply disagree with you.  You
> have your opinion on Red Hat, and it's well known.  Not everyone shares
> it.

And not everyone disagrees either, and almost certainly not everyone
within RedHat. We are talking about issues of awareness. Try to rise
above inclusion/ exclusion, although admittedly that's the blunt
phrasing Tom used. But that just wasn't the point - although it is the
point, as in the point is to break down the exclusionary barries, which,
as a matter of simple fact, Red Hat is putting, and continues to put, in
place.

You can disagree with those facts, but they stand strong I think you'll
find.

> > 2nd: the fedora flame is very far from off topic.  Technology (like
> > arch) and social organization and economic patterns (like fedora)
> > exist in a symbiotic relationship.   
> 
> I agree there is a relationship, but it's pretty tenuous.  Why don't you
> create a new list, address@hidden or something, where this
> relationship can be discussed.  gnu-arch-users would focus on achieving
> technical goals and helping people, the same as every other project
> development mailing list.  Users wouldn't get long vitriolic flames in
> response to things like inquiries about packaging for a particular
> distribution.

It sounds like this _discussion_ has definitely pushed a button or two
of yours. As a serious question, do you feel threatened or in some way
affronted?

If so, there is no need. The point is that many people don't understand
the lock ins and the walls that get put up by, not just our self-
proclaimed "friends" such as SUN, but our long term partners, such as
Red Hat.

> What happens when we get someone who hates SuSE with as much passion as
> you do Red Hat on the list, and they respond to every thread about SuSE
> packages with long rants?  Or Mandrake?  Or Debian?

Learn to skim over the rants that, for you, are too repetitive, or add
nothing new to the discussion, or simply don't interest you.

The very fact that the threads turn into lengthy fl^Bdiscussions means
that there is grist in the conversation, there is stuff to talk about,
to argue about, and even to get emotional about. The stuff of life...

To me, it is pure inspiration. The glass is not half full, it's bloody
overflowing. What more could we ask for?

> > You can't fully grok why arch is
> > good unless you can relate that to why fedora sucks.   You shouldn't
> > resist wondering why anyone would design fedora in its current form if
> > they grokked arch.
> > 
> > I think this 'ol thing is what to aim for:
> > 
> >   http://www.geocrawler.com/archives/3/324/2002/11/0/10076413/
> 
> Fine - then talk about it on gnu.misc.discuss.

Regards
Zenaan

-- 
* Debian Enterprise: http://debian-enterprise.org/
* Homepage: http://soulsound.net/
* PGP Key: http://soulsound.net/zen.asc
* Please respect the confidentiality of this email as sensibly warranted.