> The way some people handled the opinions of others is more reminiscent of
> some political party than a free exchange of thoughts.
Are you trying to start a flame war? Please take it off this list.
> IMHO, is just as justified to call someone a whiner who threatens to stop
> doing something for a community because some people are criticising some
> aspect of it.
Have you ever coded? Have you ever created software? Are you aware of
how volunteer efforts are coordinated? I have experience with several
volunteer organizations, and I can tell you right now, your point of view
shows that you are not familiar with the milieu that that entails.
> Of course, Linux is great. Of course, people are making great efforts to
> make it as good as possible. But how are programmers going to be made
> aware of conceptual weeknesses if it is only allowed to praise them?
Whining "how come you dont fix this?" is not the same as "making the
programmer aware of a conceptual weakness". Often, programmers will
acknowledge the weakness... and ignore it. Since fixing it would probably
be complex, messy, or involve breaking something else. Sweet, small,
simple code is a joy. Big complex beasts that cover every little thing
are a pain. That is why programmers try to limit their domain and make
the program the tools so it can work with others. So if its weak in some
area, someone can write a supplemental program to address the weakness,
then the two can work in concert.
> threatening to commit suicide and hundreds of yes-men jumping to their
> defense, shouting "kill the whiner".
True. I personally cringe every time I see someone come and proceed with
a full paragraph of praise for Linus, the developers, gnu, the freeness of
linux and availablity of its source code.. all before they get down to
what they *mean* to say. Its like, we know this stuff already guys, get
over it and help us make it better. If you must say thanks, do it
privately, and keep it under a sentence. Personally, I'd keep it under 40
chars, or at most 80.
> What good is free software if you aren't supposed to criticise it because
> it's free?
Who was critizing free software? Hm?
> There are users out there. These people will get the concept that there
> are 2.0.X and 2.1.X kernels out there, but they will not understand why
> they shouldn't use the newest of the "stable" kernels.
Why shouldnt they? For most people it works fine. If it doesnt, *then*
tell them to downgrade. Each new version represents forward progress for
*someone*, and is probably less buggy than before.
> I think a "stable" kernel should be tested by some ten people with
> reasonably average configurations for about 24 hours.
> A "production" kernel should at least compile.
Thats actually a good idea. Too bad you clouded it with so much whining
rhetoric about other whiners.
> > I think someone else should work on furthering the eventual 2.0.31
> > release. I don't have the stomache for it anymore. Any volunteers?
>
> Two critical voices (who are not even criticising you personally), and you
> are going to stop what you are doing? If you see any sense in it, you
> should be able to handle that.
Again, you havent worked with volunteers and tried to coordinate them,
have you. This thing is the baby of those who do the work, and if you
come across complaining, you're just going to kill them. It is Linus
firetruck... but its not just his. If you kill the developers surrounding
him, Linux will die just as effectively. The firetruck belongs to
everyone to the degree they've added code and made it better.
> Sorry, but I think that's a pathetic reaction. It's as if the president of
> a country resigns because there are some 5% of the population who don't
> like his policy.
Is the president president as a hobby? Or rather does he get paid a
livable wage to be able to do his job appropriately?
> No matter what you do, these people will always be there. The key is to
> either ignore them or even better answer them and tell them why you are
> doing things your way and not their way.
Again, thats good advice. But its cold comfort after you've essentially
called him a "whiner" for voicing his opinion. You better watch it
buster.
The imperative mode is not a good one when trying to get a point across.
Don Dibos
http://www.linuxos.com/