FreeBSD's problems as seen by the BSDForen.de community

[Timo Schoeler]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Thus Kris Kennaway <kris at FreeBSD.org> spake on Fri, 11 Jan 2008
15:00:24 +0100:

> Timo Schoeler wrote:
> > Thus Kris Kennaway <kris at FreeBSD.org> spake on Fri, 11 Jan 2008
> > 14:12:25 +0100:
> > 
> >> Timo Schoeler wrote:
> >>
> >>>> It will even go into the CVS tree (though probably not
> >>>> into GENERIC) if the source is clean, style(9)-compliant
> >>>> and well maintained.
> >>> It should do with *one* exception: Every other, more important
> >>> problem (e.g. getting ZFS to v9) is *solved*. If this is the case,
> >>> import the USB christmas tree device driver and introduce
> >>> dev.xmastree.lamps.blink as sysctl, absolutely no problem.
> >>>
> >>>> But even if it doesn't go into the
> >>>> tree, that's not a big deal.  For example, for several
> >>>> years I maintained some patches that improved syscons
> >>>> (kern/15436).  They didn't go into CVS, but they worked
> >>>> fine for me and a few others.
> >>> But I bet you would be fine with it in the tree as well as some
> >>> others, if not all others? If so, why didn't it get into the tree?
> >>> Maybe because some lower-priority USB christmas device driver was
> >>> imported instead?
> >>>
> >>> This is the crucial point I wanted to show: *Priorities*.
> >> You are making the incorrect assumption that one developer working
> >> on e.g. your /dev/uxmas in any way effects the development of other
> >> "more important" parts of the tree.
> > 
> > No, I didn't. I said that the work is done ineffectively as he's
> > doing underprioritized stuff. Working on higher prioritized stuff
> > would be more efficient, and would help the project even more.
> > 
> > Given the assumption that the developer is able to do both, the Xmas
> > tree as well as importing ZFS v9 into the tree.
> > 
> > (I don't see the point that when somebody is really *capable* of
> > doing both things, why should (s)he do the 'lower priority' thing.
> > If you are at the olympic stadium and you're the best sprinter, you
> > wouldn't join the marathon...!)
> > 
> >> In almost all cases it does
> >> not.  If they were not working on that "lower priority" code, they
> >> would not be working on your "more important" code anyway, unless
> >> they already wanted to do that.
> > 
> > That's just a lack of responsibility, morals, and enthusiasm. So,
> > why code at all?
> 
> You are not listening to what we're telling you about how software 
> developers work,

You don't get the difference between how it was ten years ago and how
it is today. This is not my problem.

> and you've also overridden the Reply-To: chat in my 
> previous email, which is inappropriate.

I apologize. :)

> I'm not going to exchange further emails with you on this topic, and 
> you've also strongly encouraged me to also delete your future emails
> unread.

You are a very mature guy with whom discussing on a non-polemic level
is a great pleasure. (If you can find sarsasm [0] in this sentence,
feel free to keep it. It's a gift.)

> Goodbye,
> Kris

Have a nice day,

Timo

[0] -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFHh3hbUY3eBSqOgOMRCkMTAJ0Z+KkNsjsgJmNQGx2SN0FkZDyoMwCgo0vP
UlJRlG9QwOWkUa1K+SSnUAM=
=7vDY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----