Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 16:39:34 +0100 From: Timo Schoeler <timo.schoeler@riscworks.net> To: Dag-Erling =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Sm=F8rgrav?= <des@des.no> Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: strace broken in 7.0? Message-ID: <20080111163934.7a427ab6.timo.schoeler@riscworks.net> In-Reply-To: <86tzlkct8a.fsf@ds4.des.no> References: <189878.45301.qm@web57002.mail.re3.yahoo.com> <20080110171132.GM71709@tuxaco.net> <1199987094.1713.20.camel@localhost> <47866B2A.8070503@elischer.org> <20080110201548.36862edb.timo.schoeler@riscworks.net> <3a142e750801101134p659f50c8qac731334dab9877d@mail.gmail.com> <20080110215931.f14b78ec.timo.schoeler@riscworks.net> <867iigfx54.fsf@ds4.des.no> <20080111134535.a86f2ea1.timo.schoeler@riscworks.net> <8663y0ebtj.fsf@ds4.des.no> <20080111143430.2304cde2.timo.schoeler@riscworks.net> <861w8oea08.fsf@ds4.des.no> <86tzlkct8a.fsf@ds4.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Thus Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav <des@des.no> spake on Fri, 11 Jan 2008 15:49:41 +0100: > Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav <des@des.no> writes: > > I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you did not > > realize how insulting this is to someone who has spent the last ten > > years of his life writing the operating system that you use for > > free. >=20 > Having gotten that off my chest and calmed down a little, I will try > to address your other points. >=20 > Timo Schoeler <timo.schoeler@riscworks.net> writes: > > Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav <des@des.no> writes: > > > Plurium Interrogationum. Your question presupposes that FreeBSD > > > is or will soon be unbuildable and / or that its quality > > > decreases over time. > > The quality decrease could be felt, and was felt by too many people. >=20 > No factual basis. Lots of eMails, forum posts, etc. I'm not in charge to masticate statistics for you. > > > That is far from the case. In fact, we have very strong QA > > > mechanisms in place to ensure that it does not happen. > > Better ones than those that were there years ago are *now* in place > > or being implemented. >=20 > So you admit that we have better QA mechanisms than we used to Yes, and I put emphasis on *now*. > (though I suspect you don't realize how long they've been in place). I do. > Doesn't that contradict your unsupported claim that quality has > decreased? No, not at all. I don't know which classes in school you may have missed, to be utterly honest, but if quality was perfect, I assume especially the FreeBSD not to have implemented those mechanisms. > > > If you believe otherwise, you are misinformed, deluded or > > > malicious. > > I don't 'believe'. >=20 > A favorite statement of fundamentalists. No, Mr. Bush believes (!) that he's god sent. He believes. I don't. I'm a friend of logic. > You cannot claim to own the > objective truth; I didn't, and I didn't quote Sartre, Nietzsche or anybody else. > neither can I, but having spent ten years working on > FreeBSD, I can rightfully claim to know what goes on in the project > far better than you do. Obviously, working in this environment too long and without critism made you very blind. That's why companies often hire external consultants, because they see things their own staff doesn't see. I hope you already know it, in the position you are... > > > That is not how collaborative open source development works. > > On Linux it works like this, everyone does what (s)he wants, and a > > few gurus (Torvalds etc) have hard times to concentrate on the > > important things. >=20 > This is not how Linux development works. I will not pursue it further > as it isn't relevant to this discussion. There's a difference of what's stated on paper and what's reality. > > The BSDs have/had a different approach, and this was well known > > throughout the community and is still said in case somebody asks. >=20 > Mere conjecture on your part. You do not have first-hand knowledge of > how the project works. Ah, okay. So, people, stop discussing, I found the only wise guy. Go on, have a nice live, guy. Really. > > You didn't get my point. > > [...] > > You didn't get my point, again. >=20 > I'm starting to wonder if you actually have a point, since you > conveniently left it out of your email. Most interestingly, others did get it. > > I did, and I still help to work on a BSD licensed exokernel that > > will be published when it's finished. >=20 > Good, I love vaporware. You cannot imagine how much I care about your feelings. > > > No. You don't get to use the L-word. The license says so, in > > > capital letters. > > > > > > If what you really meant was "responsible", see above. People > > > will only take responsibility for a piece of code if they have an > > > interest in it. > > You know the difference between ``I can't sue you for your dog > > pooing into my yard'' and the fact that you should be ashamed of > > your dog doing it and you allowing it? Convert this, take it * > > (-1), then you get the picture. I write code, commit it, whatever, > > then I should be 'liable' for it, take care it works, whatever. >=20 > OK, so you did mean "responsible" and not "liable", though you don't > seem to appreciate the difference in meaning. Score one for the > language barrier. Not language barrier, just lack of time to find the really fitting term. > I agree that people should feel a certain responsibility for the code > they write, but life doesn't always work like that. That's a very good excuse. I'll tell the judge next time I kill somebody with my bigass car. > Significant > portions of FreeBSD were written by people who are no longer around, > for a variety of reasons. I know. There were similar discussions in the past that made people go. Not in all cases, but it happened. And it was avoidable. > By your standards, all of that code should > be removed unless someone else was willing to take over. Yes. If nature creates something, it takes care. If a mum gives bith to a baby, she cares (or, at least, *should*). Obvious. > If we did > that consistently, you would be even angrier than you already are No. > (judging from some people's reactions when we have been forced to do > so in the past) Ah, the great allmighty wisdomfilled guy again. > > It's a *moral* thing! >=20 > Morals are for people who don't have ethics. Words are for people that can't talk. > > > > [...] I wouldn't be surprised about races on six core machines. > > > I would. Very much. > > Welcome to reality. Honestly. >=20 > Poor quoting on my part. What I actually responded to was: Already solved. Have a nice day, Timo
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080111163934.7a427ab6.timo.schoeler>