Vincent Milum's (darkain) open letter to the FreeBSD community

jbo@ said:
I just read the letter.

Personally, I'd argue that this is another one of those instances where somebody thinks that FreeBSD has to be the way they want it. If it's not for you it's not for you - that's fine. Move on to something else you like.

…
Click to expand...

Jose said:
Exactly. There are so many of these, …
Click to expand...

Where? Please, can you link to one that's like Vince's open letter?

(Truly, I don't know where. I logged out from The FreeBSD Forums for around sixteen months.)


jbo@ maybe worth noting these additional words from Vince (with added emphasis):

i intentionally named NO names in the article because … i only care about results. the article wasnt written solely on my own experiences either. i collected feedback from several others first, but again, didn't want to name names, nor did i want to directly speak on other's behalves.
Click to expand...

– alongside his words at <https://forums.freebsd.org/posts/627273>.

The letter was not about Vince alone.
 
grahamperrin said:
jbo@ maybe worth noting these additional words from Vince (with added emphasis):

i intentionally named NO names in the article because … i only care about results. the article wasnt written solely on my own experiences either. i collected feedback from several others first, but again, didn't want to name names, nor did i want to directly speak on other's behalves.

– alongside his words at <https://forums.freebsd.org/posts/627273>.

The letter was not about Vince alone.
Click to expand...
I don't doubt that there are other people sharing the same opinion. And all of the are allowed to do so.
Arguing that more than one person is having any given opinion is pointless - especially on the internet. I'd challenge you to find any opinion of anybody that is not shared by other people as well.
With that I don't mean to indicate that their opinions are not important or valued less. It's just a pointless argument in my opinion.
 
The home page says use production releases, that you also showed, when that is clicked, and the other link that says supported releases, it gives those, plus stable.

It's also a pinned thread at the forums. It says for forum support use a supported release. If you use CURRENT, that's for developers and people who know what they're doing. CURRENT users are usually testing, using newer features or are confined to a virtual emulator. It says STABLE can be used for forum support.

Either way, while STABLE gets support on forums and security fixes, the Production releases are for production environments.

If these people can't figure out something that simple, to use Production releases for production systems, or in other cases maybe STABLE, which is stated and/or implied all over the place, I don't know what to say for them.

The basic information on that is right there. Homepage, other places, forums, in several places.
 
grahamperrin said:
I think you meant Git (not GitHub).

<https://www.startpage.com/do/dsearch?query=GitHub+Torvalds&cat=web> top five results include a September 2021 article by Ryan Daws:

www.developer-tech.com

Linus Torvalds: GitHub creates 'absolutely useless garbage' merges

Linux and Git creator Linus Torvalds has criticised GitHub for creating “absolutely useless garbage merges”.
www.developer-tech.com www.developer-tech.com
Click to expand...
Yes. After posting the message, I noticed my error. But when I make a mistake in my post, I do not try to hide it. You are right.
 
grahamperrin said:
… From the FreeBSD Project home page:

1700181706383.png
Click to expand...

sidetone said:
… The basic information on that is right there. Homepage, other places, forums, in several places.
Click to expand...

Re: phrases such as legacy, production and production quality, <https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=273017#c16> cperciva@ wrote:

I'm going to punt this to core.
Click to expand...

(Re: <https://www.freebsd.org/administration/#t-core>, subsequent private discussion was not limited to the FreeBSD Core Team alone.)
 
grahamperrin said:
Re: phrases such as legacy, production and production quality, <https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=273017#c16>
Click to expand...

If I can comment without booting a flamewar, or suggesting extra work for the already overstretched, nor invite requests to file another bug ...

The dreadful term 'legacy' was, I believe, introduced C. Win95 by Microsoft to disparage use of anything other than their latest release, and flogged relentlessly ever since.

Like so many terms fostered or repurposed by M$, it's entered the mainstream vocabulary to apply to anything other than the newest, shiniest anything; a tool of planned obsolescence.

I don't think FreeBSD should fall into that line by using such invariably derogatory terms.

FreeBSD 12 will in any case be unsupported by new year, but there's no need to hold one's nose while mentioning it.

As for splitting hairs re what is or isn't 'production', I'll pass :)
 
smithi said:
The dreadful term 'legacy' was, I believe, introduced C. Win95 by Microsoft to disparage use of anything other than their latest release, and flogged relentlessly ever since.
Click to expand...
Yep. Its a sleaze word used by companies to undermine alternatives they don't profit from. Similar with the pointless word "modern". For example, Microsoft's non-standard SMTP/IMAP replacement called "Microsoft Modern Auth" isn't exactly young anymore. The "modern" in its name is verging on absurd. Same with their aging GUI toolkit (do a search on this page for the number of instances of the word "modern". It is quite amusing).

The actual fact is that nothing is "legacy" if you can maintain it yourself. Then it instantly becomes a "current" fork.

If people are using an old FreeBSD release, I find that once they provide a good reason, people are more happy to help, regardless of the forum rules. If they can't provide a good reason, then they are just being weird.
 
smithi said:
If I can comment without booting a flamewar, …
Click to expand...

You certainly can :)

In itself, there's nothing wrong with the word legacy.

Example usage, in a FreeBSD context:
1700265481035.png

Similarly: it's OK for a version of an operating system to become legacy.

Not good: production supported legacy (the combination of all three for a single version).
 
Also, video drivers in the core of FreeBSD are described as legacy. What is included in that has changed. In the past, code included here didn't apply to what was needed for newer graphics cards. This is based upon that kernel could be compiled without legacy video code and run (at the time, in the 2010's) newer AMD GPU's. Later on, leaving out this legacy code from compilation caused it to not work or fail compilation. So, that legacy code has been updated, and is required for the latest graphics processors to work on FreeBSD.
 
smithi said:
… mainstream vocabulary …
Click to expand...

Recently popular in some areas, some main goals of the FreeBSD Project:

  • Cutting edge features.
  • Powerful and very fast Internet solutions.
  • Advanced embedded platform.
  • Run a huge number of applications.
  • Easy to install.
Click to expand...

They're fine goals, and so, people are happy to promote them (as if mainstream), however none of the listed goals is a FreeBSD Project goal.
 
grahamperrin said:
Recently popular in some areas, some main goals of the FreeBSD Project:
Click to expand...
(list of that)...
grahamperrin said:
They're fine goals, and so, people are happy to promote them (as if mainstream), however none of the listed goals is a FreeBSD Project goal.
Click to expand...
What's the distinction between the goals regarding FreeBSD of those two statements? I'm wondering if you had a distinction in your mind and miswrote it. I can't see a difference, and I wonder if you meant to write within the FreeBSD project.
 
If the FreeBSD Project website and documentation portal are official, then we have:
  1. official focus areas
  2. an official set of goals that differs from the focus areas
  3. an official goal that differs from the set of goals and from the focus areas
  4. a draft official core philosophy and draft official core values and technologies that differ, as a set, from the sum of those three things
  5. perceived goals, such as the set quoted above.
Given (1), (2), and (3), which should be easy to find – plus (4), which was recently found in The FreeBSD Forums:
  • it should be no surprise that (5) an articulate professional, probably not a member of the Project, can unofficially promote a well-meaning and acceptable different set of goals.
Vive la différence, inclusivity, and all that jazz.

I do understand, and respect, that some people have an alternative vision of FreeBSD as exclusive, but honestly: after thirty years of openness, isn't it a little late to begin turning people away?

It's possible to attract one large audience without alienating other audiences :)
 
smithi said:
The dreadful term 'legacy' was, I believe, introduced C. Win95 by Microsoft to disparage use of anything other than their latest release, and flogged relentlessly ever since
Click to expand...
What I find funny is it was probably introduced as a better alternative to "old and bogus" for marketing purposes. I do like it in that it shows respect to the people who created that code, or did. Today, when applied to code it has all the negative connotations of "old and bogus" and none of the good ones from "legacy."
 
grahamperrin said:
  1. official focus areas
  2. an official set of goals that differs from the focus areas
  3. an official goal that differs from the set of goals and from the focus areas
  4. a draft official core philosophy and draft official core values and technologies that differ, as a set, from the sum of those three things
  5. perceived goals, such as the set quoted above.
Click to expand...

1701481484243.png

Very recent, maybe no longer true, but I like it.

Mobile goals, no goalposts attached. Call it agility :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top