[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]

Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 02:59:58AM +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> >  It's not about succeeding. It's about false statements all the time,
> > like "Every Debian developer is also an Ubuntu developer."  If I were I
> > would know. And they are recompiling all my packages, so you can't even
> > say that they are using my packages directly.
> Is the meaning of this statement truly unclear to you, or is this purely a
> rhetorical point?  Under the assumption that you read it differently than I
> do, I'll attempt to explain.

FWIW, Mark's statement is one that I flat out disagree with. I have no
obligation or committment to Ubuntu, therefore I am not an Ubuntu

I appreciate his statement in the spirit I think he made it, but I don't
appreciate people who take it and shove it down my throat to try to
pretend that I have some committment to Ubuntu.

> but I agree with it.  I would also say that Debian's upstreams are, in the
> same sense, Debian developers. 

I think that we probably have hundreds of upstreams who would react with
everything from disbelief to anger if Debian claimed that as a blanket

Now, analog and procmeter's upstreams have on occasion read/subscribed
to the Debian BTS, sent patches to it, etc, and I certianly would be
happy to tell them I consider them to be in a sense Debian developers
because of that. But as a blanket statement it just makes the term
"Ubuntu|Debian developer" a no-op.

> Most Debian maintainers have probably never interacted with Ubuntu,
> and there's no reason that most of them should expect to.

And yet we're all "Ubuntu developers", hmm?

see shy jo

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: