results of ports re-engineering survey

[Aryeh M. Friedman]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Ade Lovett wrote:
> [admin note:  cut down on ridiculous crossposting]
>
> On Dec 11, 2007, at 21:37 , Aryeh M. Friedman wrote:
>> Number of responses: roughly 30
>
> I just wanted to pick up on this particular number.
>
> Your survey went to (at least) freebsd-ports, freebsd-current,
> freebsd-stable, and freebsd-questions.
>
> Judging by the original cc's on this message, it would appear that
> freebsd-chat and freebsd-hackers were also somehow involved, but
> not being subscribed to those lists, I wouldn't know.

The orginal survey was posted to all the cc'ed groups and while I
didn't track it the responses seemed to be evenly spread across all of
them.
>
> Now, would you care to guess at the number of subscribers on those
> lists?  Hint, total number is in the thousands.
>
> Let's, for the sake of argument, call it 3,000.  (It is, of course,
>  much higher)
>
> But, given this finger-in-the-air readership number, by your own
> admission, you have hit exactly 1% of a self-selected group (by
> virtue of being subscribed to the lists in question).  Let's not
> even mention the bazillions (technical term) of FreeBSD consumers
> that don't subscribe to any list.
>
> And from this, you extrapolate new concepts which conveniently
> involve others doing the heavy lifting.

First of all excuse my language but I have about had it with certain
people... where the *HELL* do you get the idea that I am attempting to
get other people to do the heavy lifting or have you not learned a
single f***'ing thing from the last 30 years of software engineering
(i.e. involve the user from the very beginning)... I said right in the
f***'ing disclaimer that this is not an attempt to get permission from
anyone to do anything and/or any type of project plan as of yet it is
*ONLY* an attempt to define the problem so that a good (instead of one
I "think" is good) solution can be designed.... and no to what ever
fantasy land you live in I am not asking anyone to do anything I am
not able and willing to do (I am going to send you a private reply
after this to show why for my own personal well being this is a very
bad idea)
>
> I'm done being nice with you.
>
> Get a grip.  Show some code.  Heck, show some *prototypes* of code.
>  But don't hide behind "I don't want my views to color things" when
>  it is patently obvious to anyone at or above the sentient level of
> a single celled organism that you really have absolutely no idea
> what you're talking about.

I only said that during the survey.... while I still want to gather
more data to pin down the exact requirements the general outline of
the solutions seems to be shaping up to be:

    * 100% backwards compatibility
    * Avoid the issues raised in Miller97 (see previous posts for URL)
    * Allow for mult-layered dependancies (i.e. base dependancies on
port name only not on version number *BUT* allow specific versions to
be listed as depends)
    * Depending on the results of the scope survey extend this to all
*BSD's if possible to make it so if anyone ports something then
everyone gets it also
    * A few other minor tweaks that really aren't large enough for a
general discussion of the issue

Now a question for you if the goal is truly improve the system not
what I "think" it means to improve it how the hell am I supposed to do
this with out some information gathering.
>
> The cast-off line at this point would be to point you in the
> direction of <random Linux distro>.  Only, in this case, I wouldn't
>  wish that on my penguin-orientated friends.

Hint: I have used linux for perhaps a total of a week and hated every
minute of it I would rather use NT, but I have used FreeBSD since '95
and except for jerks like you have really enjoyed it.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFHX6wezIOMjAek4JIRAoD5AJ9Mzcp5S+JScnqPadNeMPZG1hUPggCcCuaD
x1u10QapYNgg5/uOuhyZh5Y=
=W0ri
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----