Re: Why is troubleshooting Linux so hard?
On Wed, Nov 17 2010, Klistvud wrote:
> Dne, 17. 11. 2010 08:46:23 je Andrei Popescu napisal(a): Well, setting
> a set of guidelines is not about "beating maintainers with"
> anything. At all. It's the other way around; it's about letting
> maintainers intercommunicate and voice their suggestions and comments
> in order to avoid duplicating the efforts over and over again. I even
> think that such mechanism exists already, in the form of various
> Debian mailing lists (such as debian-legal) that make it easier for
> developers, maintainers and packagers to "request their peers for
> comments".
Seems like what the DPE process is all about, not policy.
>
>> Also, I consider the lack of a body to make rules about how FLOSS
>> software should be written to be an advantage, because it would hinder
>> innovation.
>
> Well, sticking to the DFSG (for licensing), or to the i18n (for
> internationalization), or to the FHS (for file placement), or to the
> (for what it's worth) POSIX standard hasn't hindered innovation in any
> essential way so far, so why should we infere that any set of
> additional, well designed guidelines should hinder it? Again, such
> rules could help software developers and package maintainers avoid
> duplicating efforts. The FLOSS world has enough self-healing mechanisms
> in place that any guidelines, when they are nothing but a burden, get
> "deprecated" fairly soon anyway.
In most of the cases, the design, and initial implementation,
and buy-in from developers was in place before these things became
policy. For the most part (though not always), policy tends to ratify
and encode _tested_ practices, and only in a fashion that doesnot make
most packages instantly buggy.
manoj
--
Computers are the most fun you can have with anything that isn't
breathing. Bruce Walker, CACM Forum
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@acm.org> <http://www.golden-gryphon.com/>
4096R/C5779A1C E37E 5EC5 2A01 DA25 AD20 05B6 CF48 9438 C577 9A1C
Reply to: