Re: Firmware stuff - was systemd FUD
On 04/03/14 17:11, Bret Busby wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Mar 2014, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
>
>>
>> On Lu, 03 mar 14, 18:57:09, Bret Busby wrote:
>>>
>>> I think that it is unfortunate that we are apparently expected to
>>> throw out all of our hardware (including printers and other such
>>> accessories), and, replace it all, each time a new version of an
>>> operating system, is released.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence
>>
>> (not implying this is the case here though)
>>
>>> The MFP thing, as far as I am aware (I have not yet been able to use
>>> all of its functionality, due to the Debian policy regarding
>>> firmware) [...]
The two things are unrelated, except perhaps by the second law of
thermodynamics. :)
>>
>> Assumptions. Please start a new thread about how to get your MFP running
>> with recent Debian.
>>
>
> Query was posted to Debian Printing mailing list in October 2013. No
> response.
There you go again, that's the second time you've done that in this
thread - refusing to acknowledge the requests of others while
simultaneously expecting their assistance.
Some people make life harder than it has to be, and you, insist on
shaving cats.
>
<snipped>
>>
>
> Unless they were found to be harmful (malicious, or, harmful to the
> system, as opposed to being inefficient), they should have been preserved.
>
> Change for the sake of chanmge, especially when it eliminates useful
> things, is not good.
That's a sophistic presumption, an argument device that's unsuited to a
forum of mostly technical thinkers.
>
> If the majority are not using something, that should not cause it to be
> deleted.
Wouldn't that result in the "needs" of a minority dictating what the
majority get? Wouldn't that be um, incongruous with your indignation
with universal injustices (and African business monopolies)?
<snipped>
>
> Reading the user guide / instruction manual / other instructions, before
> using something new, is relatively simple, but, it is generally not done.
True, but does that mean it's a good idea? In all the years of reading
your posts on various forums, and spending (wasting?) time trying to
help you solve your stated problems the one thing you've consistently
demonstrated was you don't read the man, you don't even make the effort
to comply with the basic guidelines on how to get help on this list.
If you just want to vent your spleen about world injustice, reminisce
about your past and ramble on about various subjects that aren't even
vaguely related to Debian please do so on the off-topic list.
<snipped>
>
>>> But, I see no reason why a later version of an operating system,
>>> should not be able to natively run software written for an earlier
>>> version of the operating system, with, if needed, protections
>>> inbuilt into the later version of the operating system.
>>
>> Cost of maintenance. In case of FLOSS this means the time of interested
>> contributors.
>>
>
> Ah, "there's the rub".
>
> And that is why, also, useful programs, like Firestarter and Arora, have
> "gone by the way", and have been abandoned.
>
> And, that is why what runs on one version of Debian Linux, no longer
> works on the next version of Debian Linux.
>
> Which is my problem.
>
> But, is it better to keep maintaining working software, or, to abandon
> working software,
When you've done it then you'll know the answer to the question(?)
With all your skills and experience that shouldn't be hard - and unlike
Debian developers you could just scratch your itch (obviously while
supporting the needs of the minorities).
A number of people have patiently asked you questions with the honest
intent of helping you yet you've ignored them, they've made suggestions
that would make their life easier (social barter) which you've also
ignored. Maybe you should consider changing your behavior and
expectations instead of hoping optimism will win out over experience and
you'll get that satisfaction you crave? Or perhaps you just like having
something to complain about (as if life doesn't provide sufficient cause).
<snipped>
Kind, and somewhat stunned, regards
Reply to: