Re: [Gnu-arch-users] State of the Arches

[Tom Lord]

   From: Karel Gardas <address@hidden>

   On Wed, 23 Mar 2005, Tom Lord wrote:

   > `ArX' is a fork of Arch that started back when `larch' was still
   > the only viable implementation.   Walter Landry was an early
   > pioneer in the field of distrusting my leadership to the point of
   > branching:

   >From my point of view as a user of Arch from these days, I don't think
   `distrust' is the best word here. Please do not forget that it was Walter
   who started maintaining larch when you burn out. I think we thank him for
   several larch pre releases. Also we thank him to provoke you so much that
   you recover and jump to Arch development sooner than later. Imagine that
   it also might have some impact on Arch future...

You can just imagine the stress I was under at the time -- none of the
busking stuff was bs, I assure you.  It was understatement.  That's
my primary explanation.

I think I did pretty well to draw more or less the hardline I did
around arch in the first few years -- pissing people off badly was
inevitable.  In some sense I'm very lucky that someone as talented and
driven as wlandry was one of the highlights of my pissing-people-off
career (hopefully mostly behind me now :-).

The point being: I didn't mean to omit any detail in my accounting 
of wlandry's many virtues.



   > he set out to reimplement `larch' in /C++/ and by all
   > reports has done quite well.  Of slight concern, perhaps, is that
   > `ArX' has fallen out of compatability, as far as I know, with `tla'
   > and `baz'.   It might be helpful, incidentally, for the greater
   > Arch community to help repair any residual personality rift between
   > Landry and I, at least enough to repair bidirectional compatability
   > between all branches.

   That would be just great!

   Karel
   --
   Karel Gardas                  address@hidden
   ObjectSecurity Ltd.           http://www.objectsecurity.com