Gentoo Forums :: View topic - The Rules (or Governance Model) Gentoo Operates Under

The Rules (or Governance Model) Gentoo Operates Under

View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Gentoo Forums Forum Index

Gentoo Chat

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

saellaven
l33t
l33t

Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 646

Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2015 10:18 pm Post subject:

steveL wrote:

khayyam wrote:

as I alluded to above there are outcomes, causal effects, etc, that come with the mode of governance. So, when, like yngwin above, we ask "how", we also need to ask "what happens if we don't", and/or "what are the causes of {x}". We can argue that the problem of getting "the community" to work in concert is something like "herding cats" but this is to overlook the outcomes that can, and will, come as part of our avoiding these difficulties.

Agreed; although i feel I have to point out that more often, the method of avoiding difficulties, is to shunt the discussion into a less-popular thread so that the points aren't aired widely any more. You end up with a thread with the usual suspects talking amongst themselves, and the "developers" quietly drop out.

This is very similar to the corporate move of "setting up a sub-committee" of people who raised the topic in a more general board meeting, because it speaks to the very core of what that board is doing. That's also why it's avoided; since it is well-known that things are broken, and precisely how. The latter point would be crucial in a real-life scenario.

There just isn't any will to change anything, because the people who have authority to do so, are well-served by the status-quo.

So occasionally you'll hear from some "well-meaning" soul who cannot argue with whichever analysis, wondering what can be done. OFC they entirely miss the point that what needs to be done, is a display of leadership. If something broken is pointed out to you, and you cannot but agree with the analysis, move ahead and correct the issue.

Or get off the pot and let someone else correct it, as you do not belong in any sort of leadership position. That bit no-one wants to concede, though they're usually good at musing on the nature of leadership (or more accurately, w/e is on their brain.)

Personally the older I get, the happier I am to support someone else's work instead of having to handle it myself, which I am usually not suited for in any case. I think the difference is that I know I'd be unhappy trying to do work I'm not good at, and that's more relevant to me than any sort of status.

Quote:

All non-democratic, and authoritarian, regimes point to the weakness of "the many" to act as a coherent whole (a standard nationalist trope) but the problem is equally apparent where coercion and control is the preferred method (policing, and control of opinion, is far more resource intensive).

The problem is also more of "unwillingness to act how I/we want them to act", ie about control rather than outcome. There are a lot of sick puppies in positions of power, scions of families inbred over centuries, bloodlines usually established by a psychopath and consolidated by sociopaths, who celebrate the odd throwback psycho as "one of the boys".

They tend to be more interested in control, and keeping track of where they are in "the game", than harmony, which doesn't mean anything to them beyond not so many fun things happening; usually violence or people forced to the edge acting out in some other fashion.

Quote:

These political systems are also a lot less stable, because: power being located in one, or few, hands makes it easier to seize/manipulate (and so encourages political instability); causes people to feel disenfranchised (and so have less invested in, and willingness toward, co-operation ... why should they, its not really for their benefit); undermines the very thing that each of the parties can gain from their co-operating, and the primary mechanism that facilitates them wanting to maintain that co-operation (ie, it meliorates against not finding agreement, solutions, etc).

Yes, that's just "divide and conquer". Live your life ever more atomised, cut off from the natural state of community, and never even able to articulate what it is that's missing, since you're brain-washed from birth via corporate media that effects the Nazi trope of sex and violence being the same thing (so "sex-n-violence" have been discussed in the same sentence for over 30 years, where they never were before), and drips poison ("blame the immigrants", etc) into the background of every cozy domestic situation.

Much easier to bribe, corrupt or otherwise suborn a few "elected representatives" than it is to fool all of the people, all of the time.

Quote:

Politics is no different from other dynamic systems ... and the same models used for physical systems (cause and effect, entropy, etc) are equally as apparent.

Well people are very different to molecules; far more uncertainty involved. Causes and effects are obfuscated, and when simple obvious ones are pointed out, as with your arguments with the legal establishment, it's just dismissed as oddball, or "radical" when you want to imply vague threat (FUD) to anyone who doesn't toe the kleptocratic (or hegemonic) line.

Quote:

It should be self-evident that the problems we encounter as a community can all be attributable to, or understood as reflections of, this community ... that is, there is a causal relation ... but this community is only as much as its governance model accounts for, allows, inculcates, etc, which is what makes the "developers do what they want", or "show us the code" so problematic, it casts the entire nature of the problem as inherent to the model, re-shapes the term 'community', and highlights that these problems are at heart political.

Yeah trouble is the old one of sheeple who think they're "apolitical" not realising that simply means they effectively give up all claim to a voice. The problem in Gentoo developer land is they're under the delusion that by being completely ignorant of politics, they are somehow better at "technical" things. The concomitant non-sequitur is that they can collectively deal with socio-political matters, despite having trumpeted how they only consider people's technical ability as a qualification for "merit".

The first is completely mistaken, since your technik operates in a human monde, as it has to meet user-goals, whatever your personal inclinations are toward dealing with end-users. It's no good doing the bestest piece of software evah, if no-one ever uses it; and more often than not the reasons for it not being used are political, social or commercial, not technical.

That's one of the appeals of FLOSS: that the work is, or can be, pursued for the craft of it. Amateur-hour politicking simply threatens the very thing the "we're not political, but here's all these rules that mean we're in charge" brigade claim to want to protect: the ability to pursue technical perfection.

Ofc the grown-ups let the kids think w/e craziness they like when they're at the age where they play in a playpen, sandbox, or w/e you want to call the portage-tree in your ickle head. There there.

And thus, you have things like the Delphi Technique, where proponents of a certain outcome put themselves into positions as key facilitators and then proceed to manipulate the participants until they get the desired outcome. I've seen it happen several times over the last couple years in Gentoo and other distributions regarding a certain abrupt sea change in core functionality. Whether or not the people seeking a certain resolution intentionally knew of the technique or merely stumbled upon it through practice accidentally, it was mostly successful.

ff11
l33t
l33t

Joined: 10 Mar 2014
Posts: 664

Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2015 11:33 pm Post subject:

saellaven wrote:

Well, for me, if someone used it directed to me, then it only helped me. Because I have made my point and the others agree with it. What I can say?! Thanks?!
By the way, I like more of the techniques from the Asian continent, that are far more old and well tested, and mainly unknown for many people here.

khayyam
Watchman

Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 6227
Location: Room 101

Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2015 1:25 am Post subject:

steveL wrote:

khayyam wrote:

stever ... indeed, and I'm one of the professional shunted ;) ... or at least someone who doesn't particularly care for the kind of outcomes gained by "avoiding difficulties".

steveL wrote:

There just isn't any will to change anything, because the people who have authority to do so, are well-served by the status-quo.

Spinoza was probably one of the greatest analysts of politics when he wrote:

Baruch Spinoza wrote:

The supreme mystery of despotism, its prop and stay, is to keep men in a state of deception, and cloak the fear by which they must be held in check, so that they will fight for their servitude as if for salvation.

BTW, I just trashed a post I was going to make as I got press-ganged into a game of bingo by a 4yo ... pfttt community. So, yeah, I don't know if I want to be a sponge to soak up all that obviousness masked as supreme mystery.

steveL wrote:

khayyam wrote:

Politics is no different from other dynamic systems ... and the same models used for physical systems (cause and effect, entropy, etc) are equally as apparent.

The comparison wasn't made between people and molecules, but the methods of study used. Causal models often tell us more than psychological, or genetic, models (such as you provided above). So, for example, was the rise of National Socialism a psychological phenomena or one representing the nature of causal outcomes of political decisions ... if I had to model it I would choose the later, psychology doesn't play as big a role in it as one would expect because these affects (love, fear, hate, etc) are common to things other than National Socialism. Now, in politics there is the expression and use of love, fear, hate, etc ... but for political aims, and these express decisions rather than psychology in particular. OK, its more than that, because we aren't trying to get a personal motivation (so to speak) but the entire spectrum of human behaviour ... so, casual, rather than psychology, genetic, ideological, etc.

steveL wrote:

[...] The concomitant non-sequitur is that they can collectively deal with socio-political matters, despite having trumpeted how they only consider people's technical ability as a qualification for "merit".

That's the point I was trying to raise earlier ... politics, and all the things that can derived from it, are skills, and they don't come as part of the basic operating system of humans. Humans tend to adopt the political models around them unreflexively, that's why people tend to see politics as something they know ... because they've been practising it every social situation they've ever been in ... but of course without really understanding it ... and often explicitly disavowing it as 'political'.

best ... khay

khayyam
Watchman

Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 6227
Location: Room 101

Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2015 1:44 am Post subject:

saellaven wrote:

And thus, you have things like the Delphi Technique

saellaven ... interesting, but on a quick read these are standard techniques of the cunning, courtiers, propagandists, hustlers, etc, etc. Its Sun Tzu's art of war only carried out by public relations experts :)

saellaven wrote:

I've seen it happen several times over the last couple years in Gentoo and other distributions regarding a certain abrupt sea change in core functionality. Whether or not the people seeking a certain resolution intentionally knew of the technique or merely stumbled upon it through practice accidentally, it was mostly successful.

That's part of the problem with it ... how do identify when you're being played as opposed to just running up against your usual motivated, but confused, individual? That's not meant as a serious question but generally how do you know such a play is in operation. I like to think that Hanlon's razor shaves a little closer ;)

best ... khay

steveL
Watchman

Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery

Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2015 11:08 am Post subject:

steveL wrote:

I was hoping you would tell me that was nothing to do with you, and you hadn't realised (or some such.)

ff11 wrote:

Ok! That was nothing to do with me.

Thank you. :-)

Quote:

I just saw the code at the time, I was sabotaged, but I don't write any articles about it, so now I only looked for someone who wrote something about what I went through myself, being sabotaged and losing files because of it. If you can read codes, then you can replace the link with: version 2.6.20 - 2.6.21 from git.kernel.org the Reiser4 commit (it's pretty clear that it was sabotage).

IDK it could just have been a mistake, though the switch around of lines for no apparent reason was dodgy, I agree.

Either way, are those functions back in the kernel, in whatever form? The name change from CamelCase to lower_case is pretty common for integration into C, but the fact that they changed what they did isn't so good.

But the important question, is it corrected now, and when did it get corrected?

ff11
l33t
l33t

Joined: 10 Mar 2014
Posts: 664

Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2015 11:43 am Post subject:

steveL wrote:

Either way, are those functions back in the kernel, in whatever form? The name change from CamelCase to lower_case is pretty common for integration into C, but the fact that they changed what they did isn't so good.

But the important question, is it corrected now, and when did it get corrected?

They just did it (not just lower_case, it's another function that need explicit close to work well), and they abandoned the code just after that, saying that even if it had potential they would not use the Hans Reiser code because of new features on the lvm (I think that was the "justification"). But how had nothing better (including ext4), they then began code the btrfs to take the place. The future will be btrfs, and I'm waiting for that final good version for a long time (while using ext4 with data=journal to be close secure like the old reiserfs, but with a good performance impact). I really don't like this, but at least they are working in something that will be better someday, I just have to wait.

steveL
Watchman

Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery

Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2015 12:10 pm Post subject:

khayyam wrote:

I'm... at least someone who doesn't particularly care for the kind of outcomes gained by "avoiding difficulties".

No user does ultimately, much like we don't care for the outcomes when a plumber "avoids difficulty" by not bothering to learn the trade, before coming round to charge us a grand for making things worse. Though less will speak up, we end up being labelled the "usual suspects" which is equivalent to flipping the bozo bit, only it's known upfront that it is a definite mistake.

Gentoo users, as I've maintained for yonks, are a different breed to most end-users of distros. They're clued-up, and every single one of them is an administrator, of their own little corner, if nothing else. They do the QA at a much more thorough level as a result, and as a natural consequent of using a from-source distro.

That is why Gentoo is important in the Linux ecosystem, and that is why it is such a target: it's the crux where the from-source (ie: upstream) work really gets shaken out, across so many different configurations. Not just what one team can get working on a specific architecture, with a specific configuration, as important as that may be downstream.

Definitely no programmer worth the name does either; the whole focus of programming is to confront the problem transparently, efficiently, and with due consideration of the domain context.

The latter is missing in the missives of most developers, who seek only to shortcut the process by pretending politics doesn't matter at some points, and that they are qualified to oversee non-technical matters at others, so whatever naive "analysis" they come up with, usually an easy soundbite doing the rounds, must be correct.

That's not transparent, and it's not efficient either, since it doesn't actually address any of the fundamental issues, which are pretty simple to sort out; just do what the Community told you to several years ago, and stop with the hand-waving, already.

All it is, is lazy. Shoddy thinking, as my boss would put it.

Quote:

Spinoza was probably one of the greatest analysts of politics when he wrote:

Baruch Spinoza wrote:

Conditioning yeah, leading to apathy; "it's always been like this"; "what can we do about it, why bother?" etc, or alternatively "render unto Caesar", and cognitive dissonance meaning "someone's in charge, and they're basically good" despite all the consistent evidence to the contrary.

khayyam wrote:

Politics is no different from other dynamic systems ... and the same models used for physical systems (cause and effect, entropy, etc) are equally as apparent.

steveL wrote:

Quote:

The comparison wasn't made between people and molecules, but the methods of study used. Causal models often tell us more than psychological, or genetic, models (such as you provided above).

Well entropy is a very specific physical phenomenon, to do with the laws of thermodynamics afair, though I'm no physicist so don't take my word for it.

Applying that as a "model" to social phenomena, wrt a "method of study", may be a useful metaphor, but that's all it is: a metaphor oft used in conversation, not an actual method of analysis, since "entropy" has no meaning unless you define it as a domain-specific term, inconsistent with its standard meaning.

AFAIK anyway; as ever could be wrong, so don't bite my head off for it ;)

Quote:

So, for example, was the rise of National Socialism a psychological phenomena or one representing the nature of causal outcomes of political decisions ... if I had to model it I would choose the later, psychology doesn't play as big a role in it as one would expect because these affects (love, fear, hate, etc) are common to things other than National Socialism.

Again, the field or domain, makes a difference, since causal analysis in physical systems is much simpler, eg factors like temperature for Brownian motion (iirc).

While I'd agree that we can find relatively simple causes for many things (such as: "the financial system is a fraud, so everyone keeps getting poorer"), you cannot always predict what people will do as easily as you can make probabilistic analyses of where an electron might be, for example. Sometimes a quantitative change, requires a qualitative difference in methodology; in this instance you're dealing with an awful lot of what are relatively simple effects in the physical sphere, to constitute one human-being. Further, the observer is the observed, in set (or "class") terms.

As such it comes down to "soft" factors, such as socialisation and communication, which only truly happens between equals.

OFC, if your brain is missing social wiring, none of that is going to make any sense to you, whereas computers might. So you'll settle for the easy option of believing you deserve special treatment, because your brain is missing something and thus you are able to devote endless hours to pedantic detail, in baroque excursions of the "latest, greatest". It gives you a sense of being special, and you don't have much else in the way to feel good about socially, since you're not tuned to it; the premise for this scenario. Cue snarky sarcasm and obfuscated simplicity dressed up as mystique.

Now when it comes to getting the best out of those people, sure we leave them to it. But part of their development as professionals, is that they learn to bite the bullet and consider user needs as constraints they don't argue with, but merely about how to achieve them most effectively. If the grown-ups tell you modularity matters, then listen to them, and by all means prove otherwise: in your own time, and nowhere near a released community product, as the community requires an ecosystem, to get the most out of Gentoo.

Quote:

Now, in politics there is the expression and use of love, fear, hate, etc ... but for political aims, and these express decisions rather than psychology in particular. OK, its more than that, because we aren't trying to get a personal motivation (so to speak) but the entire spectrum of human behaviour ... so, casual, rather than psychology, genetic, ideological, etc.

Psychological factors are how propaganda work though. (FUD.) The current hegemony is in fact based on the entire "psychological industry" put in place after WW2 to deal with returning soldiers in the US. Since then the honestly-named Propaganda Ministry/Depts have morphed into the advertising industry, which has always been quite proud of invoking cognitive dissonance to make people feel vaguely dissatisfied as they compare the reality of their lives, to lala-land on the television, where everyone's worth it and has an island, a yacht and a private plane.

Along with the music industry which "sells dreams." IOW illusion, the sizzle not the sausage. But that's ok, rich people don't pay taxes, and that's patriotic, rather than treasonous. </s>

Quote:

politics, and all the things that can derived from it, are skills, and they don't come as part of the basic operating system of humans. Humans tend to adopt the political models around them unreflexively, that's why people tend to see politics as something they know ... because they've been practising it every social situation they've ever been in ... but of course without really understanding it ... and often explicitly disavowing it as 'political'.

which tends to give the lie to "not part of the basic" makeup of a human being. I'd argue we're social animals, and thus political animals. I tend to give credence to the theory that we've developed much of our brains to deal with each other lying.

Unfortunately, when you're dealing with geeks or males, self-insight doesn't hit til the 30s, at earliest, usually. And some people just don't have social wiring, which doesn't mean they cannot be useful, or are somehow invalid people (w/e that means.) It just means they don't know what they're talking about when it comes to such situations. And we should not pretend otherwise if we are trying to sort out social issues, which always come up in a community, by definition.

khayyam
Watchman

Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 6227
Location: Room 101

Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2015 3:52 pm Post subject:

steveL wrote:

The latter is missing in the missives of most developers, who seek only to shortcut the process by pretending politics doesn't matter at some points, and that they are qualified to oversee non-technical matters at others, so whatever naive "analysis" they come up with, usually an easy soundbite doing the rounds, must be correct.

steve ... I guess the point is that such analysis is subject to the domain from which its derived, I don't expect developers to know, but I do expect them to listen (or at least be capable of reflecting on their own understanding of the subject). But of course it must "be correct", because such is what the rules state, or how developers have interpreted and inculcated them as their practice. Cicero once wrote that "law must be in agreement with natural law" and that's all that's really involved here, if we use the term community then naturally this means everyone, and as to what any such law is directed: "the safety [or well being] of the people shall be the highest law".

If anyone thinks this is trivial then they (specifically those located in the US) should consider the following:

Does the law (governance structure) have a duty to protect? What kind of 'obligations' are involved in the contract between a member of the body politic and the governance structure, you would assume (like all contracts) its a "mutual obligation" right, so an obligation in return for an obligation (a duty of allegiance in return for a duty of protection). You might think so, but no, Bowers v. DeVito and DeShaney v. Winnebago County (both of which, if shepardised, are supported by every US supreme court) clearly show the law has no duty to protect. In fact in Souza v. City of Antioch (which is also upheld by the supreme court) those acting as agents of this law have no duty to protect, they are under no obligation to do anything.

Any reasonable person might ask then: what purpose then does the law serve, and what is it that their alligence is toward ... this is where you end up when what should stand as a basis for such an agreement is swept aside.

steveL wrote:

khayyam wrote:

The comparison wasn't made between people and molecules, but the methods of study used. Causal models often tell us more than psychological, or genetic, models (such as you provided above).

Well entropy is a very specific physical phenomenon, to do with the laws of thermodynamics afair, though I'm no physicist so don't take my word for it. Applying that as a "model" to social phenomena, wrt a "method of study", may be a useful metaphor, but that's all it is: a metaphor oft used in conversation, not an actual method of analysis, since "entropy" has no meaning unless you define it as a domain-specific term, inconsistent with its standard meaning.

That's where you're wrong ;) ... its not a metaphor ... humans, societies, economics, etc, are all subject to the application of energy. They require energy (physical inputs) of some kind to function, and so are subject to entropy, and the (causal) effects of the use of energy. So, from a social science perspective its very meaningful, because its a means of viewing the mechanics of a system (inputs and outputs, etc), the level of equilibrium, dissipation, etc, etc, produced by a particular socio-political system.

steveL wrote:

AFAIK anyway; as ever could be wrong, so don't bite my head off for it ;)

hehe ... no, no. Anyhow, you can hopefully see how this is far more applicable a methodology than say that of psychology.

steveL wrote:

While I'd agree that we can find relatively simple causes for many things (such as: "the financial system is a fraud, so everyone keeps getting poorer"), you cannot always predict what people will do as easily as you can make probabilistic analyses of where an electron might be, for example. Sometimes a quantitative change, requires a qualitative difference in methodology; in this instance you're dealing with an awful lot of what are relatively simple effects in the physical sphere, to constitute one human-being. Further, the observer is the observed, in set (or "class") terms.

The idea isn't to predict, but to understand. Politics isn't the tool of technocrats, or would-be revolutionaries, its the practical application of understanding to a problem (the human problem). Its concerns everyone because our autonomy requires that we are free of constraint, but at the same time we are constrained by the need to work with others in order to achieve that freedom. If people understood that as a basic principle for their actions then the entire mechanism of law would be avoided, it would, as Cicero hints, be entirely a natural phenomenon.

steveL wrote:

As such it comes down to "soft" factors, such as socialisation and communication, which only truly happens between equals.

I disagree ... this form of 'equality' can't be naturalised, equality really only refers to the political domain (which covers economics, law, etc) not to human thought, communication, etc. I could give you a dozen instances in which communication is possible between animals of different species, or plants even. A sign represents something to something else (another sign, person, animal, etc), its not telepathy ;) You never really "understand" in that sense (and I say that not as a nominalist, but as a realist).

steveL wrote:

khayyam wrote:

It doesn't come as part of the package, no more than language does, and while humans use language, signs, politics, they are developed as they are deployed, and so skills. We're political animals, but so are solitary animals when they encounter other animals, animals also co-operate, use signs, etc ... but they wouldn't recognise our discussion here, and nor would a newborn. Signs interpret other signs.

Sorry I snipped so much ... I just wanted to focus on specific questions

best ... khay

steveL
Watchman

Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery

Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2015 3:21 am Post subject:

khayyam wrote:

The comparison wasn't made between people and molecules, but the methods of study used. Causal models often tell us more than psychological, or genetic, models (such as you provided above).

steveL wrote:

Well entropy is a very specific physical phenomenon, to do with the laws of thermodynamics afair, though I'm no physicist so don't take my word for it. Applying that as a "model" to social phenomena, wrt a "method of study", may be a useful metaphor, but that's all it is: a metaphor oft used in conversation, not an actual method of analysis, since "entropy" has no meaning unless you define it as a domain-specific term, inconsistent with its standard meaning.

khayyam wrote:

Not at all; all I can see is pseudo-science of the worst sort, dressing up a metaphor as if that gives an adequate basis to model anything. A "means of viewing" is exactly that; all you're doing is repeating the same old dinner-party babble as if that makes a "hard" science out of social sciences. It's painful, to be blunt, as I've sat through lots of discussions about exactly this subject, and just how sad it is when social scientists try to use an "imaginative" leap to make their subject sound like physics, which does that subject a grave disservice.

Saying vaguely "it's all energy" doesn't mean anything. Or perhaps you can clarify just how that comes into play, what your units are, and where you're measuring them. Then kindly show how that is used in any social science currently practiced.

I thought you were going to talk about entropy as a rate of decay, ie a mathematical usage. Not just wave your hands and say "energy is used everywhere, QED."

yngwin
Retired Dev

Joined: 19 Dec 2002
Posts: 4572
Location: Suzhou, China

Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:37 am Post subject:

khayyam wrote:

yngwin wrote:

John R. Graham wrote:

Do you believe that Gentoo Developers are required to act with the best interest of the community at heart?

I don't see that requirement codified anywhere. I do think most developers would see it as an unwritten, professional pride issue, that is important, but it is not necessarily the measure by which decisions are judged.

Yes, because you refuse to see them as being implicit in "acting together for common/mutual benefit" ... if I hadn't made this point on a number of occasions I could perhaps overlook that, but you seem dead set on asserting the right to "do what you (and other developers) want".

This is not about asserting my rights. Forget for a moment that I am developer. I am simply describing the system as I observe it (from within, like a cultural anthropologist who is participating in the culture he is studying).

That said, I do believe that the current mix of meritocracy and anarchy is not necessarily in the best interest of Gentoo. But it is extremely hard to change the organizational culture. I believe we need a more defined vision. And in my opinion a benevolent dictator model (more or less how Gentoo started, and how the Linux kernel and Slackware still work) would be better. We would get more things done, and deal with toxic people faster.
_________________
"Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves." - Abraham Lincoln
Free Culture | Defective by Design | EFF

steveL
Watchman

Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery

Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2015 10:14 am Post subject:

yngwin wrote:

Trouble is, that we've heard it all before, and as usual the "we can do what we want" approach, which you keep presenting as "the way things are", despite clear evidence to the contrary (such as QA policies, even though your QA team is crap) is the problem. Not whether we have one asshat at the top who can out-asshat all others.

That doesn't get rid of toxic people faster; in fact the real issue is that you have toxic developers, because you have a culture which fosters nastiness toward users.

Users are not the problem; they continue to QA the distro as effectively as ever.

khayyam
Watchman

Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 6227
Location: Room 101

Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2015 12:59 pm Post subject:

steveL wrote:

steve ... that leap to a "hard" science is not one I made, this is not about the status of the social sciences as a discipline but about the particular focus given, as I wrote: "causal models often tell us more than psychological, or genetic, models (such as you provided above)" so for instance your "bloodlines usually established by a psychopath and consolidated by sociopaths", etc. Your argument seems to be that no such thing as 'entropy' or 'causality' can be seen on the level of human societies, which of course is absurd because they are physical systems, they have outcomes based on their functioning (or dysfunction), and as 'physical' systems have similar constraints (societies don't function without food, or land to grow that food, etc, etc). These pressures, and the systems developed to deal with them (the institution of property, the use and distribution of resources, conflict, etc, etc) "tell us more" than the particular psychology, or genetics, of the "sick puppies in positions of power". The use, and abuse, of resources, how they are allocated (ie, focus of expenditure on war, etc), are {neg-,}entropic forces acting on societies, and have outcomes that can be used to describe how well the system functions (with a mind to its viability and its serving its implicit function).

I really don't appreciate your distinctly dismissive and somewhat insulting appraisal above ... are you forgetting that its this subject I've been wrestling with for 30 years? Do I need to similarly contrive a summation of your assessment as "amateur hour". You should at least do me the courtesy of keeping to the facts, I've never been to a "dinner party", when my peers we're doing this I was too busy reading and trying to get a handle on the subjects they might have been inclined to "babble" about. Again, are you mistaking me for someone else?

steveL wrote:

Saying vaguely "it's all energy" doesn't mean anything. Or perhaps you can clarify just how that comes into play, what your units are, and where you're measuring them. Then kindly show how that is used in any social science currently practiced. I thought you were going to talk about entropy as a rate of decay, ie a mathematical usage. Not just wave your hands and say "energy is used everywhere, QED."

Your completely misrepresenting my argument, and I don't see how mathematics come into it. If you said "I jumped up from the table and caused the cup to fall on the floor" would it be reasonable of me to ask if you have mathematical proof of that causality? Or, say, if the energy system of your car run out of fuel would it be required to provide the exact mathematics of this fact so as to be able to view it as an example of thermodynamics? Or, say, when you use a sign are you required to provide all of the signs that sign references so that that particular sign is meaningful or understood? Well, shiver me timbers (that's a term used by pirates, a term means, a meaning is, pirates are ... ad infinatum). Signs interpret other signs in a chain of signification ... if you want the meaning (or unit measure of) any sign it will be in reference to another sign. So, that's how it "comes into play, what [such] units are, and [how I] measur[e] them".

best ... khay

ulenrich
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Oct 2010
Posts: 1480

Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:30 pm Post subject: thinking of a way with _Less_Rules_ needed

yngwin wrote:

That said, I do believe that the current mix of meritocracy and anarchy is not necessarily in the best interest of Gentoo. But it is extremely hard to change the organizational culture. I believe we need a more defined vision. And in my opinion a benevolent dictator model (more or less how Gentoo started, and how the Linux kernel and Slackware still work) would be better. We would get more things done, and deal with toxic people faster.

As of today there are how many orphaned packages?
How many maintainers will stay away if such a benevolent dictatorship is introduced again? (What happened a decade ago?)
Perhaps there is a technical alternative instead of changing rules and code of conducts ... etc:

Desintegrate Gentoo - this is supposed to be a meta distribution! Why do we need more in profiles of the portage tree than arch/base?
Sincerely: Let the rest of profiles be done in another place, perhaps also in this Gentoo user forum, done in some sticky threads by advanced users! All that frustration about libav is because there was such a thing as a _default_. Why is there such a shitstorm on the way about the ffmpeg/libav alternative? Why don't Gentoo users love choice in this case? Any _default_ is against the spirit of a meta distribution. Encourage advanced Gentoo users to create derivative Gentoo distributions by utilizing the profile technique!
My vision: There should be thousands of profiles out in the wild!

Hints:
- Gentoo profiles are not that magic ... if they are NOT shown recursively.
- package.mask was misused in the ffmpeg/libav case to (mis)guide people. Why weren't used ebuild dependencies?

[edit] changed my title

Last edited by ulenrich on Wed Feb 18, 2015 2:18 pm; edited 1 time in total

khayyam
Watchman

Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 6227
Location: Room 101

Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:52 pm Post subject:

yngwin wrote:

khayyam wrote:

yngwin ... so, when you say "gentoo is not a democracy", or "developers do what they want", these do not involve any judgement on your part, they are purely descriptive? If this is the case then what could it possibly mean when you say "you are completely wrong" to my statement that "developers are only agents of the community, acting for the benefit of that community"? Is that similarly descriptive? It's either the assertion of a right for developers to do what they want or constraint via their implicit agreement with the community in "acting together for common/mutual benefit". So, which is it?

yngwin wrote:

This is an example of mistaking cause for effect, but ok, you can have your "benevolent dictatorship" but only if you dispense with "for the community, by the community" and forsake the "cooperative model [that] will remain valid for Gentoo's entire lifespan".

best ... khay

khayyam
Watchman

Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 6227
Location: Room 101

Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2015 2:08 pm Post subject:

ulenrich wrote:

[...]

subject: The Rules (or Governance Model) Gentoo Operates Under

John R. Graham
Administrator

Joined: 08 Mar 2005
Posts: 10587
Location: Somewhere over Atlanta, Georgia

Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2015 2:59 pm Post subject:

khayyam wrote:

John R. Graham wrote:

Okay, I see; I think I misconstrued a little bit of what you said. I do think it could be construed as a little bit "cart before the horse" if we still haven't located the rules the developers are required to operate under.

We don't need to locate such rules, they are implicit in "acting together for common/mutual benefit".

steveL wrote:

What khayyam said:

khayyam wrote:

We don't need to locate such rules, they are implicit in "acting together for common/mutual benefit".

...

Well, I think you're both wrong on this. I believe that the having the rules we would like to operate under remain uncodified is in the chain of causality that's contributed to the excessively confrontational behavior of (some) developers we're currently living with.

What did the great man write?

We hold these truths to be self-evident...and therefore we'll save the scrivener a little time by not enumerating them.What's so wrong with codifying some rules about behavior—and the consequences of non-compliance? Although I'm under no illusions that it would solve everything, I do believe it would help.

- John
_________________
I can confirm that I have received between 0 and 499 National Security Letters.

khayyam
Watchman

Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 6227
Location: Room 101

Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2015 8:15 pm Post subject:

John R. Graham wrote:

khayyam wrote:

We don't need to locate such rules, they are implicit in "acting together for common/mutual benefit".

steveL wrote:

What khayyam said:

John ... there are two problems with this, firstly the logical one: its implicit because any rule to the contrary is a contradiction. Secondly, have you ever looked at the laws of your jurisdiction, or the laws applied to, say, contract or labour law? If you have did the subject become clear to you, or were you forced abandon your research given the density, or sheer volume, of material? If you had to defend yourself in a court of law (pro se) do you think you understand the procedure well enough to make a good case in your defence, and if so why can't you act as council for others in the same, or similar, predicament. Let me give you some legal advice, and so break the law (yes, offering legal advice without being a member of the bar is illegal in many states): turn up to court on time!

So, going back to Cicero above "law must be in agreement with natural law", that means relate to and be comprehensible for those who at whom it directed. Cicero also wrote that the extent of a tyranny can be gauged in the number of laws it has codified. Now, as your located in the US you can perhaps answer me a simple question, are you a citizen or a Citizen? (yes, there are two distinct definitions).

John R. Graham wrote:

What did the great man write? We hold these truths to be self-evident...and therefore we'll save the scrivener a little time by not enumerating them. What's so wrong with codifying some rules about behavior—and the consequences of non-compliance? Although I'm under no illusions that it would solve everything, I do believe it would help.

Someone probably thought the same when authoring GLEP 39 ... but anyhow, I don't think anyone is arguing about the right or wrong of such an idea, what this seems to be about is the basic idea of "what gentoo is", and in who's benefit it is operated.

best ... khay

Last edited by khayyam on Wed Feb 18, 2015 8:21 pm; edited 1 time in total

steveL
Watchman

Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery

Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2015 8:20 pm Post subject:

steveL wrote:

entropy is a very specific physical phenomenon, to do with the laws of thermodynamics afair, though I'm no physicist so don't take my word for it. Applying that as a "model" to social phenomena, wrt a "method of study", may be a useful metaphor, but that's all it is: a metaphor oft used in conversation, not an actual method of analysis, since "entropy" has no meaning unless you define it as a domain-specific term, inconsistent with its standard meaning.

khayyam wrote:

steveL wrote:

khayyam wrote:

Oh Lord, now you're conflating entropy with causality. Your use of the term "entropy" remains a metaphor, and I never said anything about not allowing other models; that's your strawman based on dismissing my argument as solely genetic, when that was just an example.

For a start I already discussed a simple causal idea, so IDK where you're getting this from. But ofc, let's go on with the argument ad adbsurdum:

Quote:

which of course is absurd because they are physical systems, they have outcomes based on their functioning (or dysfunction), and as 'physical' systems have similar constraints (societies don't function without food, or land to grow that food, etc, etc). These pressures, and the systems developed to deal with them (the institution of property, the use and distribution of resources, conflict, etc, etc) "tell us more" than the particular psychology, or genetics, of the "sick puppies in positions of power". The use, and abuse, of resources, how they are allocated (ie, focus of expenditure on war, etc), are {neg-,}entropic forces acting on societies, and have outcomes that can be used to describe how well the system functions (with a mind to its viability and its serving its implicit function).

So where does "entropy" as a physical quantity enter the analysis. How is it measured, and where?

steveL wrote:

Quote:

Your completely misrepresenting my argument, and I don't see how mathematics come into it.

Then you should stop with the "this is just like hard science, really" bit, or the reaching for "entropy" as a useful "model" (w/e that means.)

Quote:

If you said "I jumped up from the table and caused the cup to fall on the floor" would it be reasonable of me to ask if you have mathematical proof of that causality? Or, say, if the energy system of your car run out of fuel would it be required to provide the exact mathematics of this fact so as to be able to view it as an example of thermodynamics?

What does that have to do with it? Where are you even discussing physical energy, beyond resource, which has never needed entropy to make the discussion meaningful.

The real problem with it is that you talk of "negentropic" forces, but we have more than enough energy; the Sun beams far more at us every day, than we could ever dream of using. (If you want a claim to authority, I believe Fuller discussed that.)
So lack of energy is not the issue, and "entropy" is not useful as a metric. Resource is not just energy, or the discussion would have no meaning; resources are all about artificial scarcity.

Quote:

Signs interpret other signs in a chain of signification ... if you want the meaning (or unit measure of) any sign it will be in reference to another sign. So, that's how it "comes into play, what [such] units are, and [how I] measur[e] them".

I see; pseudo-babble about semiotics iow. No use of entropy as anything other than a metaphor, as before.

As for dismissive or insulting, ffs khay: don't attach your ego to your argument. You're way past that, by now.

And yes, you have in the past dismissed me as "amateur-hour" or w/e; you'll notice I never took exception. I simply carried on discussion, because assumptions don't get questioned unless you explain what seems basic, or rather: fundamental.

steveL
Watchman

Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery

Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2015 8:25 pm Post subject:

John R. Graham wrote:

What did the great man write?

I have no issue with a rule or statement that indicates Gentoo, like all distros, exists to serve its users.

Like I said, though, it kind of goes with the territory, since all software must meet user-goals, or it gets binned. Also, someone who doesn't already see that, should never even have been recruited. But sure, by all means.

khayyam
Watchman

Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 6227
Location: Room 101

Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2015 10:22 pm Post subject:

steveL wrote:

Oh Lord, now you're conflating entropy with causality.

steve ... nope, there is no conflation, its a list.

steveL wrote:

Your use of the term "entropy" remains a metaphor [...]

Right, so societies that squander resource in pursuit of some aim are completely free of all outcomes in that regard, so the success of some political system can be gauged by the speed at which it can reach the point of collapse. They are just metaphors of course.

steveL wrote:

[...] and I never said anything about not allowing other models; that's your strawman based on dismissing my argument as solely genetic, when that was just an example.

I never said you did, I only made a contrast, so stawman to your stawman.

steveL wrote:

khayyam wrote:

[...] which of course is absurd because they are physical systems, they have outcomes based on their functioning (or dysfunction), and as 'physical' systems have similar constraints (societies don't function without food, or land to grow that food, etc, etc). These pressures, and the systems developed to deal with them (the institution of property, the use and distribution of resources, conflict, etc, etc) "tell us more" than the particular psychology, or genetics, of the "sick puppies in positions of power". The use, and abuse, of resources, how they are allocated (ie, focus of expenditure on war, etc), are {neg-,}entropic forces acting on societies, and have outcomes that can be used to describe how well the system functions (with a mind to its viability and its serving its implicit function).

So where does "entropy" as a physical quantity enter the analysis. How is it measured, and where?

Entropy isn't a quantity, its not something external to physical systems ... and I answer that question in the last sentence above.

steveL wrote:

khayyam wrote:

Your completely misrepresenting my argument, and I don't see how mathematics come into it.

Then you should stop with the "this is just like hard science, really" bit, or the reaching for "entropy" as a useful "model" (w/e that means.)

... and you should stop with this "I'll quote you saying something you didn't say", your problem is that you think that because "hard science" states that a quantity is measured, and so presentable as a metric, that any statement from the social sciences is similarly disposed to do so. I've already provided semiotics as an argument against such a view (of the social sciences, not of scientific quantification) so unless you want to explain to me every term you use, and every subsequent term used to explain those terms, and so on, your going to have to accept that meaning isn't something that can be conjoured out of thin air with an inherent value asigned.

You started with the whole comparison between the terms of science and my use of the terms 'causal' and 'entropic' and now I'm expected to show exactly the kind of metric applied to show them quantifiable or suffer being labled 'pseudo-science', well, lets reverse the operation, for every term you've so far used in this discussion please give me a precise definition (and a definition of any terms used to compose that definition) ... and I'll be happy to accept your claim to have a grasp of the nature of science, and its superiority to those of the social sciences.

steveL wrote:

khayyam wrote:

What does that have to do with it? Where are you even discussing physical energy, beyond resource, which has never needed entropy to make the discussion meaningful.

Well, you seem to be arguing that if you use a term like 'cause' or 'entropy' that these are explicitly the terms of "hard science", and that there are certain criteria for their use that if not provided makes the term "pseudo". Entropy (as a term) describes processes in dissipation, equilibrium, etc ... so, just as gravity can mean seriousness, or a physical force, entropy can be used as a description of energy use, so dissipation, and equilibrium, of societies. Your looking for pseudo-science where there is none, because like 'cause' in the above accident with the cup no specific "scientific" explanation is involved ... but I'm sure no scientist would dispute the use of the term.

steveL wrote:

The real problem with it is that you talk of "negentropic" forces, but we have more than enough energy; the Sun beams far more at us every day, than we could ever dream of using. (If you want a claim to authority, I believe Fuller discussed that.)

Well, entropy isn't an external force, the neg/entropy I speak of are those of the society, or its political and economic activity. Some things are more disruptive, or exhaustive, of the available resources and so effect the social and political life of those societies. So, as I said, its a way of looking at, or modelling, the ways they operate. The sun may provide a lot of energy but a society would need to act to extract that energy and put it to use. These actions are a measure of its nature, and so reflect how it is dealing with the problem of its needs, its particular political, economic, and social problems.

steveL wrote:

So lack of energy is not the issue, and "entropy" is not useful as a metric. Resource is not just energy, or the discussion would have no meaning; resources are all about artificial scarcity.

Not sure I under any of that ... I never said that "resources == energy", and it is an "issue" if you don't have it, if you don't get access to clean water, food, shelter, etc you die, and that is a common occurrence in war, drought, disasters, etc. If you think that resources are all about "artificial scarcity" then I wonder what the people living in sub-saharan africa might think about that, because there is nothing "artificial" about the availability of water ... though we can try and understand why water is becoming scarce, and the political, economic, environmental reasons behind it ... which is pretty much the approach I'm taking.

steveL wrote:

khayyam wrote:

I see; pseudo-babble about semiotics iow. No use of entropy as anything other than a metaphor, as before.

Sorry, I don't know what you mean by 'I', 'see', 'pseudo', 'babble', 'about', 'semiotics', etc, can you explain each of those terms ... providing a definition of each term used in those definitions ... thanks.

steveL wrote:

As for dismissive or insulting, ffs khay: don't attach your ego to your argument. You're way past that, by now.

Well, I'm in the land of pseudo-babble ... so either well before it, or well in front of it ... but don't let that deter you from offering me, or my ego, advice.

steveL wrote:

And yes, you have in the past dismissed me as "amateur-hour" or w/e; you'll notice I never took exception. I simply carried on discussion, because assumptions don't get questioned unless you explain what seems basic, or rather: fundamental.

No, I used it once in a private exchange, and as you never responded (or, in your words "carried on the discussion") I have absolutely no idea of any exception taken or otherwise. In that exchange I described it as "amateur-hour" as quite frankly that's what it was ... and I don't think this particular discussion is faring any better.

best ... khay

krinn
Watchman

Joined: 02 May 2003
Posts: 7470

Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2015 1:38 am Post subject:

steveL wrote:

John R. Graham wrote:

What...

I have no issue with a rule or statement that indicates Gentoo, like all distros, exists to serve its users.

http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/about.xml wrote:

What is Gentoo?
...
Of course, Gentoo is more than just the software it provides. It is a community built around a distribution which is driven by more than 300 developers and thousands of users. The distribution project provides the means for the users to enjoy Gentoo

I think it cannot be more clear.

yngwin wrote:

And in my opinion a benevolent dictator model (more or less how Gentoo started, and how the Linux kernel and Slackware still work) would be better. We would get more things done, and deal with toxic people faster.

We don't need any dictator to drive anything, like all persons, dictator have friends. Electing a dictator to kick out the so-called "bad devs" will only lead to all dictator's friends getting themselves bad too (because of their new immunity).
If you have a problem with some dev's attitude, then build a representative entity of the community (not made only with devs but also with users, as users have less interaction with devs, they are less friend/enemy of any dev and you could expect a more fair answer to any dev problem).
If the judges are then not seen as partial, the one taking sentence will accept it more. And as your judges are not any dev friends, it will put all devs at same level, lower "bad devs" number itself (as they couldn't anymore count on their friends devs support).

And you should had notice i said "not made only with devs", so the entity may judge any community members (so not only devs, users too).

steveL
Watchman

Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery

Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2015 6:45 am Post subject:

steveL wrote:

khayyam wrote:

No, I used it once in a private exchange, and as you never responded (or, in your words "carried on the discussion") I have absolutely no idea of any exception taken or otherwise.

You used it above, actually. And you have taken a similar line, in other discussions, ime.

Quote:

In that exchange I described it as "amateur-hour" as quite frankly that's what it was ... and I don't think this particular discussion is faring any better.

Yes I have to concur. I'm sorry you got treated so badly by your profession.

But it wasn't me who did it.

steveL
Watchman

Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery

Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2015 6:50 am Post subject:

krinn wrote:

And you should had notice i said "not made only with devs", so the entity may judge any community members (so not only devs, users too).

Yeah, Proctors, as originally mandated by the Community in the only Code of Conduct that actually had any validity.

I agree that a benevolent dictator is a bad idea, and would lead to the effects you describe (yaf clique.)

I think it's one of those "can't be bothered to think it through, so let's go for the quick fix"; I mean, "say what you like about Hitler, at least the trains ran on time." (No, that's not Godwin's; it's Boll, iirc.) Similarly to "we can sort it out between us can't we boys" (ie we don't need any actual experience or even aptitude for social matters), the idea of "just cutting through the red-tape" appeals, because people seem to believe the dictator will secretly be just like them.

Naib
Watchman

Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 6051
Location: Removed by Neddy

Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2015 8:48 am Post subject:

krinn wrote:

steveL wrote:

John R. Graham wrote:

What...

I have no issue with a rule or statement that indicates Gentoo, like all distros, exists to serve its users.

http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/about.xml wrote:

I think it cannot be more clear.

yngwin wrote:

I was thinking how to reply to the notion of returning to a despot governance but this will do

its bad and as you said "bad developers" could be pushed out and "good developers" kept in an even part of an inner circle. good and bad then become a relative concept to the type of dictator.
If the view of gentoo from the moderators is a meritocracy and anarchy then that is one label ... technocracy could be another as it is those with knowledge that govern. Either way it works ... mostly.
Dev's are free to work on what they want without some vastly restrictive mandate. If a dev wants to work on one package and keep it well maintained w.r.t. gentoo tree so be it.
But this anarchistic model has weaknesses. Look at pre-exherbo... how long did it take to get dev's out. Look at now when gentoo dev's push their own agenda at the expense of the wider community. Or developers that tell users not to raise bugs against their packages (yes I have had that...)

What about a referendum from the wider community? have Gentoo carry on operating akin to a parliamentary system with an executive branch in the council (and an herd's represented by their local team - one or many...) But take libAV where even now it is still in the state it is, why not have user's register for voting (gpg key or other means to ensure votes are not stuffed...)
Then if a referendum is called, say by the council due to wider concerns... the community votes are tallied and they contribute to 50% of the overall vote while the remaining 50% based upon the dev's vote.
_________________

Quote:

Removed by Chiitoo

tclover
Guru
Guru

Joined: 10 Apr 2011
Posts: 516

Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2015 11:57 am Post subject:

steveL wrote:

I think it's one of those "can't be bothered to think it through, so let's go for the quick fix"; I mean, "say what you like about Hitler, at least the trains ran on time." (No, that's not Godwin's; it's Boll, iirc.) Similarly to "we can sort it out between us can't we boys" (ie we don't need any actual experience or even aptitude for social matters), the idea of "just cutting through the red-tape" appeals, because people seem to believe the dictator will secretly be just like them.

Thanks for pushing forward this discussion, which is highly necessary! specifically, when such "bad habits" pollute it in every conceivable manner... such as the following.

* "This is how it works!" & "This is how we do!" re-enforced with "bad [or rather false] argument(s)" such as "meritocracy",--as is if there were any inherent "merit(s)" being a "baron" (developer) [or rather dictator],--and thus "merits" to push whatever change(s) in Gentoo regardless of its values/benefits to the community. Where this supposedly "merit(s)" comes from?! (No clue.) What's the point of being a Gentoo dev. in first place?! "Oups, no idead. Don't ask."
Or the _dev. HOWTO_ ("bad habits.")
* "I do what I want!" Fine. But _why_ & _how_ do you _do_ what you _do_ in the first place? No idea? (Working for "mutual benefits"?) or never mind? because of... "don't like additional constraints, come on, give me a break, let me do what I want." Sigh. This pseudo _liberal_ $&<% or "free bad habit" is hard to deal with... because, after all, "we're free to do what we want." Fine. But, don't confuse "freedom" with "free beer." I mean, one's completely free to do... minus (a few) "social contracts" which ensure that "freedom" to _do_ in the first place.
_________________
home/:mkinitramfs-ll/:supervision/:e-gtk-theme/:overlay/

Display posts from previous:

	Gentoo Forums Forum Index Gentoo Chat	All times are GMT Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
Page 3 of 5

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Copyright 2001-2024 Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Designed by Kyle Manna © 2003; Style derived from original subSilver theme. | Hosting by Gossamer Threads Inc. © | Powered by phpBB 2.0.23-gentoo-p11 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Privacy Policy