Planning an overall direction for LFS

Jeremy Huntwork jhuntwork at linuxfromscratch.org
Fri Feb 29 12:26:24 PST 2008


On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 08:45:47PM +0200, George Makrydakis wrote:
> 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.

No. On this you are very incorrect. Go back and review the threads and
the actual content in the books.

1) Nothing from CLFS exists in the branch I created. If I ever did use
principles or even partial commands I mentioned in the lists that ideas
came from CLFS.

2) I gave full credit to Greg and his project. You will find that in all
my posts where I use his findings and promote them to the list. DIY is
even mentioned in the Trac tickets. Greg is also explicitly listed in
the commit logs.

3) I may be wrong, but I don't recall Greg ever asking me to give
attribution to him where I did not. If it did happen it was an oversight
that was corrected on later commits. Are you speaking for Greg in
bringing DIY into this, and are you in the habit of knowing what Greg
thinks about my use of his research? I highly doubt it.

> 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.

I asked George B. and Manuel to change the name to something else after
they began redesigning the core code. Look it up, it's in the archives.

The reason for the JH on the branch in LFS is that it was changes that I
was working on alone. I wanted it to be known that it did not represent
official LFS direction and that changes there were changes that I had
personally decided to experiment with.

Anything else you say about it is merely guessing at my motives.
 
> 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 
> issues.

I have never tried to force anything. People are free to make up their
own minds. Anything I have ever said are merely suggestions. I neither
have the power nor the inclination to bend others to my will.

> 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.

I don't keep chat logs. Email, sure. 
 
> 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. 

Well that's wonderful. But I don't recall the conversations. Was I a poor listener or
reader? Perhaps. It's also been a long time since (more than a year?)
and a lot has happened in my life. It's easy to forget about things if I
never hear about them again for a year. If you want to accuse me of
anything, accuse me of having a poor memory.
 
> 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.

Things that are _implied_ are by nature not plainly evident. And
#cross-lfs is not exactly a reliable place to make announcements. I have
rarely visted there in the past years and those there hate logging, so
how am I supposed to know what is said there?
 
> There are other places outside here you know...

Sure. But if you want to be sure people _here_ to know about your
project you have to come here.

> 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.

Again, that is _fine_. It isn't about if it is _my_ idea or someone
elses. Let's _do_ what we need to do to employ the good idea. 

> 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).

So I suppose when I go through this list and collect as many suggestions
as I can from the many individuals that have made them (including those
who have disagreed with me) to list them in an way that is easily
readable and so they are not lost in a winding mailing list thread is
really me showing disrespect to others' ideas. 
 
> 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.

I am prepared to do homework. At this point we are just discussing ideas
about where LFS _should_ go. When it is decided _by_the_community_ where
LFS should go, _how_ it achieves that goal can be discussed in greater
detail; and if that involves taking advantage of work that others have
already done and giving proper credit to their work, then that's
wonderful. Isn't that what Open Source is about?

> Correction, you tried to fork the project, but you could not put it together. 

You have limited information about me, my time, my goals and motivations
and my personal responsibilities. Any conclusions you arrive at about me
are therefore guesswork at best. The above comment is simply an attempt
to discredit me and insult me.

> 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.

For the wonderful wiki Joe created? If he licensed the code in such a
way that allowed reuse with accreditation, then sure, if it fit the
needs.

Why are you speaking for others and trying to pit me against them? Let
them speak for themselves. Joe and I (to my knowledge) have nothing
against each other.

The fact that you are 'speaking' for so many people that flock in IRC
sounds like there has been an awful lot of talk about me going on behind
my back. That's real honorable. If they have something to say, let them
say it themselves to me.

> 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.

?? I don't need anyone to come to my rescue. The accusations you're
making are preposterous. I don't see how you can be offended at me when
I have clearly _not_ taken your _work_ and presented it as my own.

If I say that LFS should make use of a program that behaves in every way
that portage in Gentoo does (which I'm not, but it's an example) should
the Gentoo creators and portage maintainers become upset with me that I
suggest LFS use similar ideas?

Why does there exist a variety software that does the same or similar
things? Various text editors, various partition managers, various IM
clients (each one using the same protocols and many with similar feature
sets)? Because it is acceptable to have the same ideas as others and
accomplish those ideas in different implementations, and people want
variety. That is _all_ I have ever done. I have not once stolen code or
taken credit for myself where it is due elsewhere. If you think I have,
prove me wrong.
 
> 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.

You are making blind accusations and bringing others into your argument
without any apparent authorization. Speak for yourself only.
 
> 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.

Do you never stop making assumptions and speaking of things you cannot
possibly know? I should not need to go into the details of my personal
life to show why I have a limit on what I can give to the open source
community.

> 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.

Perhaps because I wasn't trying to attack.
 
> 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.

What? I was not 'shown the door'. You clearly have no idea _what_ you
are talking about. I gradually stopped contributing to CLFS over time. I
was never dropped from the project.

> How many times have you requested for "private" help from others? But then, 
> never gave back at least a thank you note ?

Never. Not once. Ask Alexander Patrakov, Joe Ciccone (whom you seem glad
to have brought into this) and Justin Knierim. They all received a good
measure of thanks from me on a number of occasions for the excellent
work they have done. I readily admit that the LiveCD would not be the
quality it is today without Alexander's work and determination to make
it as bug-free as possible, and Justin did an excellent job for a long
time there in keeping it up to date and in maintaining the server for
it. I told each of them this on a number of times. And I've always
thanked others for the contributions they gave me.

> How much of jhalfs is really jh?

Not much any more. And I readily admit it. Again, you have no idea what
you speak of. Read the lists, you'll find I always credit Manuel and
George B. (and others now, too, I believe). And again, I asked them to
change the name.

> 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.

That statement may actually be possible - but not via the means you have
said. You are clearly working with half knowledge or from information
passed onto you in chat rooms by people nursing a grudge. You really
need to verify your accusations first next time.

> 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.

What a horrible and bitter statement to make, and one that you cannot
possibly prove. I have never intentionally attacked you, and just
yesterday I checked to see if there was anything we needed to clear up
between us. I went out of my way to ask, and today, this?

If you think I betrayed you because I presented ideas to this community
that you were, unknown to me, working on in a private project, you've
got a skewed understanding of the word betrayed.

--
JH 



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list