Re: bugs + rant + constructive criticism (long)
Why the hell should we go on #debian on OPN when you so much as admitted
that the ops on it have some kind of power trip: devoicing instead of
rebutting when they have an issue with what's said? If I help somebody, I
really don't want to have to stay politically correct: getting the problem
solved is much more important than keeping somebody's ego stroked. It
sounds like ATM I could not in good conscience recommend that a newbie get
help on OPN, because it sounds like the people who are genuinely trying to
help are also the ones that cannot speak.
On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Jim Lynch wrote:
> > Date: 03 Jan 2001 15:23:09 +0100
> > To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> > From: Peter Makholm <email@example.com>
> > Subject: Re: bugs + rant + constructive criticism (long)
> > Jim Lynch <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > > If you want to advocate the use of unstable software, please be my guest...
> > > but not on #debian. it changes daily, and can potentially break every
> > Again, what is you right too say so other than it is you oppinion?
> It's more than opinion, it's fact for reasons already stated; It's not
> smart to run debian dists that are not released/stable on mission-critical
> servers. It sometimes causes those servers to break, sometimes in nasty
> ways. I've seen it happen over and over again. People sometimes get fired
> from their jobs over this. ("Sometimes" is good news: in many instances,
> debian performs extremely well in mission-critical situations, most of the
> time when the packages all fit together and do not change.)
> When machines break for whatever reason, sometimes people come to
> #debian for help. It's unhelpful to encourage people to break their
> mission-critical servers... If Eric wants to do it himself, fine.
> If he wants to say he did it, fine too, if he warns about instability
> (which his original letter shows he had plenty of.) He said he helps
> on the channel, and that's fine. But it's not fine to be unhelpful
> when others have to try to help undo the damage it causes.
> I'm not even saying he did; I'm just letting him know, so that if
> he does tell someone who is (say) new, who has a job tending a mission-
> critical server that they should run unstable on it, then gets quieted
> by me on channel, he'll know why :) But, as I use the quieting as an
> opportunity to have a short, private discussion of the matter usually
> followed by an unquieting, it's not a big problem.
> (these are fairly narrow circumstances; I may widen them somewhat
> depending on the situation.)
> Of course, not many developers like coming to #debian due to its
> present noisiness and relative newbishness, or maybe for other
> reasons; there used to be more (heck, it used to be all-developer,
> before the channel was known.) But I'm presently one of the channel
> operators, so I make decisions, and I act.
> If you want to discuss rights of myself and others to act, please
> come to the channel and help out for about a year. Then discuss;
> you'll know what's up then. As for myself, I've been around #debian
> since very close to its inception; possibly as long as 6 years ago.
Pardon me, but you have obviously mistaken me for someone who gives a