ulenrich wrote:Is there any thread left not derailed for his own purpose?
Oh God, and you again. What a surprise.
I'm pretty sure there aren't any threads on systemd that you haven't stuck your "surreal" oar into, seemingly with the express purpose of propagandising for RedHat.
It doesn't seem to matter how ridiculous you sound, nor how many people tell you you're talking nonsense, you keep eulogising about how great it is. That really is dedicated.
IME dedication like that, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, is usually paid-for belief, or a familial connection.
As for my "derailing" threads, I don't accept the notion: I am never alone in querying what I query, but I'm usually the guy anyone who wants to lie about it and pretend it isn't real[1], accuses of "causing" whatever issue it is we're discussing.
As if to talk about a thing after it has already happened, is to cause it in the first place. What nonsense.
If that can't work, then we get sidetracked into "ooh he's so horrible, isn't he Gavin?" iow: let's pretend the issue is the person raising it, not what she's talking about.
To anyone external, all this looks
exactly like "shoot the messenger."
In that regard, consistent deflection is an embarrassment, not a point-scored.
My only purpose is to improve Gentoo, despite all the mud you keep throwing my way.
Disagree with me on that tip, and I'll be happy to deal with you.
Talk crap about how your ego cannot handle a piece of software being critiqued, and I will laugh at you, offline at least.
Same goes for everything to do with software production: if it affects the output, it's fine for discussion.
If it's business, it can usually be improved, and that is all it is to me when we're discussing at this non-code level: business.
Results, first and foremost.
Software that wastes our time, costs us money; and has knock-on real-world effects that
matter to real human-beings.
Sorry if you don't like that, but it's so not my problem.
--
[1] Naturally that's going to be a developer, most of the time, since they're the ones implementing whatever it is, and I'm calling their baby ugly; even if that's not what I'm saying, that's how it feels when you're new. Which is why I'm usually careful to qualify criticism to a specific area, not the whole shebang. (If I really don't like the whole shebang, I'm not using it.)
Does that mean we should kowtow, or mince our words? Absolutely not: we're meant to be nurturing professionals. That requires an ability to ego-detach, or you will go insane (aka: burn-out); since if you don't care about the work, you're not even up for consideration.
You MUST be able to cope with people calling your software crap: if it is, most everybody will, and you learn (something technical.)
If it isn't, then someone will just because you're competition. And again, you learn (something social.)
Either way, you MUST NOT attach criticism of your code to yourself.
I know I don't, since most of my time is spent thinking "No, that won't work," along with an occasional "What was I thinking?", and the seldom-encountered-but-scary "Who wrote that?" when I know damn well no-one else has touched that code.
That is why I am dismissive of bad ideas: it's
not confrontational, it's simply that I
know it's a bad idea, and having explained or read why, my overriding impetus is to move on with a better one. (As it would be if scotched a particular approach in code.)
Arguing about the bad idea, once we know it's a bad idea, is simply a waste of time when it comes to getting results.[2]
Even worse is arguing about how I should not have said it was a bad idea, as it supposedly hurt the feelings of someone who usually displays no empathy for anyone else, only bafflement at even being called-out on unforgivable rudeness.
Thinking about why we made a mistake is only useful at a meta-level, usually individual, and not conducive to getting results; especially when it comes to the limited collaboration-time available to move forward.
(A different consideration applies to social matters, rather than technical: I am only talking about the latter.)
If it's a basic mistake you keep making, like pretending that modularity is a "traditional", "legacy" concern, and not as fundamental as hygiene is to surgery, then people will make the criticism directly, and again: you learn.
Honestly, it's a lot more fun when you don't take code-criticism personally, and broader criticism as a chance to self-improve.
If you don't want to learn, except from your own ego, then you are in the wrong business.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.
You should do everyone, including yourself, a favour, and find another trade, preferably after seeing a therapist.
--
[2] So all you're going to get from me is: "No, it's still a bad idea", which apparently comes across as stubborn.
To me it's like having to say: "No, water is still wet"; I'm unsure why we're even having the conversation, so I look for other reasons, when perhaps I should not.
Yes, that's a concession that I, too, can get carried away. Make of it what you will.
I'm only human, and it's no fun coming under constant fire from people with badges and yet far too much to prove, as well as friends to collude with, in abuse of Comrel process; which
keeps on happening with
no consequences for the initiating party: just an "oh well, better luck next time."
If someone else wants to take on the "mantle" of user-some-of-us-would-most-like-to-ban-but-can't-because-there-are-no-grounds-as-really-we're-just-being-a-bunch-of-asshat-dweebs, then feel free.
It won't be hard: just post to the developer mailing-list pointing out the massive inconsistencies in various positions adopted, along with constructive ideas on improvement; and show some awareness of the background and supposed "rationale" in each case, so that you cannot simply be dismissed with a "you don't know what you're talking about" (several variants of which you will encounter along the way, with varying degrees of rudeness, but very rarely none.)
You'll soon see just how "pleasant" developer hate-mail can be.
Meantime I'm still going to use Gentoo, and hopefully I'll improve where I have rough edges.
Certainly there's no shortage of "helpful" criticism to point out every tiny mistake I might make, which I guess is no different for the developers.
I just wish people would focus on technical disagreements with what I say, as they're so much more interesting, for me at least.
Though I guess that's the point isn't it: when we cannot argue with what you're saying, we seek to discredit you instead (cue: mud-slinging, call for backup and get them mud-slinging.)
Social ones when applied by developers to users, seem to be a mechanism of control, rather than clarity.
And ofc they don't exist when it comes to developers: they just get swept under the carpet, so other users can trip over them; and hopefully break their ankles for having the temerity, to expect developers to behave just half-as-well as users.
So it is different: for developers, clear social problems are hand-waved away along with whatever spurious meme they are telling themselves this year; and technical criticism can always be deflected into social-criticism of the user, and usually is whenever they feel out of their depth.
For users, any social criticism is magnified inordinately to serve that last; and technical criticism is non-existent since you're only a user, so we don't have to listen to you (if only you "contributed" in ways we acknowledge, that show submission unto us.. iow: if only you wanted to be an ebuild developer, then we'd have leverage over you.)
Essentially the same position as a hospital claiming no other doctor can have an opinion on their botched surgery, on the grounds that "they don't work here".
Yeah, right.
This does not a healthy development-model make.
No, I'm not talking doom-and-gloom or whatever other crap I'll no doubt be accused of:
The developers who behave like this are few and far between.
The vast majority get on with their work without giving a damn about the rest of the tree, let alone what a small group developers are playing at now.
Unfortunately we mostly see that small group (or another) when it comes to flamey threads on the forums, since they have an agenda to push, which is what the threads were about in the first place.