Re: Debian systemd survey
On 05/24/2013 04:15 PM, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 04:07:06AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> On 05/23/2013 03:55 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
>>> How on earth does that contradict with the fact that 40%, i.e.
>>> the minority of all contributions are done by the original
>>> author. 40% still means that 60% of the code comes from other
>>> people and those are 145 contributors according to ohloh [1].
>>
>> It's not this way. Last time I checked, there was another upstream doing
>> about 30% of the work.
>
> You keep moving the goal posts!
Probably I didn't express myself correctly.
Let me try again.
First don't take me wrong. It is my view the number of authors in a
given project isn't an indication at all of the quality of the said
project at all. But...
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
"Don't you really have any other good argument to bring up
against systemd other than you dislike *one* of the systemd developers?"
That is making the false impression that Lennart is just one developer
out of many, and that therefore we shouldn't care. That isn't truth, he
is clearly the main author and by far, and *we should* care.
But that's not it. Also, from this page:
http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/the-biggest-myths.html
[citation]
"27 - Myth: systemd is a Red-Hat-only project, is private property of
some smart-ass developers, who use it to push their views to the world.
Not true. Currently, there are 16 hackers with commit powers to the
systemd git tree. Of these 16 only six are employed by Red Hat. The 10
others are folks from ArchLinux, from Debian, from Intel, even from
Canonical, Mandriva, Pantheon and a number of community folks with full
commit rights. And they frequently commit big stuff, major changes."
[/citation]
Olav Vitters is right. I shouldn't have call it lies, this is
inappropriate and impolite. But maybe one could call it propaganda,
seeing the git stats that I posted.
What disturbs me a lot, is that what I wrote above is very easy to
check, and there is no controversy possible, but other "facts" of the
myth page have also been repeated here, for which I can't say the same
thing. Then I wonder how many of these "facts" are also distorted
reality, repeated without any further checks. It worries me that we are
having an important discussion with the view of upstream as
argumentation, and that some statements will simply never be checked.
Steve wrote to begin with:
> Sure; obviously the right thing to do is to instead take stuff from
> GNOME and freedesktop.org without regard to integration with our
> existing system, because if Lennart says it's right it must be so.
I agree with what is above. I don't want to just take any random piece
of code from Lennart, just because he said it's the latest awesome
thing, especially when it's touching every bits of my system.
> I doubt either of you is going to convince the other, so why not
> respect the OP and leave it there?
I don't understand the OP's post in the first place. What did he need to
know that wasn't discussed before? Also, this thread was highly
predictable, with or without the OP's post, sooner or later. IMO, the
fact that his message sparked the fight^Wdiscussion again isn't relevant.
Thomas
Reply to: