Planning an overall direction for LFS
george at obsethryl.eu
Fri Feb 29 10:45:47 PST 2008
On Friday 29 February 2008 17:26:43 Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 04:20:25PM +0200, George Makrydakis wrote:
> > I would have some heavy commenting to do on the origin of what you are
> > proposing here but in anycase, time for this will come and you know it.
> > People who know, know. Those who don't probably did not care enough.
> > Discussion in here about this bears little fruit for the time being.
For all readers: There are many things you do not know. Choose the version of
the facts that appeals most to you, you will eventually find out the truth on
> I really don't care where the ideas came from.
On that we agree. You care little. Despite the fact that you had to care at
times in order to avoid the consequences of your own actions.
> If you want to claim them
> as your own, be my guest. I certainly don't need any praise. I just want
> to see LFS move forward.
Thanking somebody does not mean that you praise him/her. It is actually a word
(praise) you use quite often. Is it because you think about it all the time?
You have some issues, sir. You are doing the same thing to everybody else's
project you cannot touch. You did the same when you ungraciously backported
everything from cross-lfs and diy in order to have a 64bit build. To the
point where people like Jim and Greg asked you _EXPLICITELY_ to give proper
credit, in this list and elsewhere. You are just trying to behave like a
pattent troll company.
You don't need any praise? Strange for somebody who does everything by
appending his initials on things that are not exactly one man jobs, or
maintained by him.
But, you are missing the point: you can't force things the way you want
through social leverage. People who will fall into this trap, have their own
> So, readers, please go back through this thread and remove all instances
> where I said 'my ideas' and please replace with 'ideas that George M.
> had and that I apparently knew about but had completely forgotten or
> transferred into the subliminal'.
You are trying to be humorous. That is good, takes away the stress, doesn't
it. You cannot forget what you keep in email records or chat logs. Can you.
> To the last of my recollection George
> was working on an automation tool that was especially adept at fully
> parsing XML. I was unaware that he had ideas about restructuring the
> format of LFS and making it more modular and flexible.
Alright, somebody is failing the Turing test, again. You were very aware of
everything. You discussed this with me, AND OTHERS who contributed to this,
more than one year ago. It is not about XML alone and I have stated this
elsewhere and in these grounds. Building things with XML as the format is a
very good solution, if not, the only solution. I was always referring to a
series of components that would deploy XML.
Second point. Nobody claimed that all of the above belongs to a single person.
It is actually something that is around for several years as a concept and
implemented elsewhere as well. Take for example the long forgotten LVR
project for lfs when it comes to RPM and package management, since you are so
dependent on the Absolute Truth of this mailing list. And by the way, the
same difficulties you have with anything else, RPM, DEB, TGZ, <favourite
As to the restructuring of LFS, it is plainly evident that I had implied this
in here, and I have also said this explicitely in #cross-lfs in freenode some
times. The entire book format has issues. I have said this several times. And
without package management, LFS is to remain incomplete.
There are other places outside here you know...
Also, just because people do not announce things in here for you to
cannibalize with ease, it does not mean that these things do not exist. If
you were kind enough to do a background check, you will see that everything
you say is already old. Even on the odreex trac in presentation mode similar
things are there before you even started discussing with anyone else. You can
search everywhere you want.
You and others like you are responsible for the forks LFS has had, and
everyone knows that these forks are there for a reason. Some of the users
could not stand it any longer. They cannot stand neither the attitude, nor
the tendency to want to do things the way you do them (aka not respecting
anyones wishes but your own).
Again, multilayered package management support is an issue that you are not
the first to bring about. If you are not aware of this, then you probably
have not done your homework by studying things elsewhere.
> Really, it's not important to me. What is important is that LFS grow and
> progress. And it's important to me that it be LFS. I did try to create
> my own fork of the project at one point.
Correction, you tried to fork the project, but you could not put it together.
You will try this again in the future, unless you gain full lead of it. What
is it going to be, are you going to import Joe Ciccone's PHP code in the LFS
SVN now ? The list of people can increase you know.
Putting yourself in the position of a victim, appealing to the the more
aggressive "friends of yours" to come to the rescue so that you get out clear
is an inadequate attempt at making others appeal more to their instincts than
their brains. Well, no problem with that.
> If I had a been a bit more
> determined, I may have been successful.
It takes more than determination. It takes other people to trust you. I do
not. Some others as well. And the ones who stick by you, will eventually find
out why they will be betrayed at a critical point. You have proven that you
do that on several occasions.
> But in the end, I realized that
> I didn't _want_ to fork. I wanted _LFS_ to be successful. The project
> had done a lot for me and I was very fond of it, and I wanted to see its
> flaws or limitations worked out.
Oh but it is important to you, but only to your own ends. It is not that you
did not want to fork, it is that once you forked and saw that you could not
bring things to such a level as to cause a user drain because of the wow
perspective you figured out that it was easier to come back again.
The only thing that keeps you here is that LFS is based on the fact that you
don't have anywhere else to go right now, when it comes to *fromscratch.
> I have no personal agenda with this, George. I'll even step back and
> become again a silent user and observer if it means that conversations
> like this will end and LFS can finally grow again.
You are not using behavioral psychology in the best way possible if you are
trying to attack. You should check a public library about it before trying to
attack in this commonplace and inefficient way.
Would you care to explain why you were shown the door from clfs ? At least
they respect the fact that even previous contributors stay on their
contributors list. On the other hand, you just work on everybody else's
ideas, don't you.
How many times have you requested for "private" help from others? But then,
never gave back at least a thank you note ?
How much of jhalfs is really jh?
You are one of the people who actually contributed to LFS's demise. I feel
sorry that you lack the will or the ability to understand this.
I am not giving you a hard time. You give it to yourself. If people really
care about "building their own distribution", it is better that they try some
of the more technically adequate projects like diy-linux, cross-lfs, T2,
gentoo/paludis etc. At least, they do not have erratic jihads.
I will not respond to stupid and/or offensive comments by other people who
will jump to your rescue. They will be repaid by you betraying them in
anycase, once their time comes. I have no reason to doubt you as a person
that you mean well etc.
It is just that your actions in this particular setting show otherwise. You
have given once more the perfect opportunity to make several things about you
Only that this time, time is up, friend. This is why you rushed yourself into
this new thread. I think I am wasting my time explaining things like these to
you. You know them already, you just do your usual social engineering and
character assassination in a pityfull manner.
This particular conversation has ended with you, and with others like you. I
think that we all have better things to do than trying to make you understand
why I think that you are not who you want others to think you are, or me
understand that I should have completely ignored this new series
of "threads". Well, it won't happen again.
That said, I do not have any issues with you as a person. Your way of doing
things though, is rude.
Have fun, make LFS-JH the best. In all honesty.
More information about the lfs-dev