Planning an overall direction for LFS

George Makrydakis george at obsethryl.eu
Fri Feb 29 14:14:29 PST 2008


On Friday 29 February 2008 22:26:24 Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> 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.

I have, do what you want.

> 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.

I have always wanted to do a full framework on this, more than one people 
know. Even NOW, I would have no problems working with you... Why? Because

> > 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.

No comment.

> > 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?

This is a non trivial issue to discuss. I will hold the comment for now.

> > 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 have limited information about me as well, but that has not stopped you in 
the past from insulting me as well. You and your buddies. I may be harsh 
about this, but you have not exactly been as comforting when you started 
putting other people's stuff into the lfs SVN and taking credit. That has 
happened to me as well.  This is not an attempt to discredit you, it is an 
attempt to rectify what you have done against me and others.

If I am mistaken you can correct 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.

Again, it honors you.

> 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.

I did not imply that you had. I am not trying to pit anyone against you. I am 
using some arguments. Perhaps this is also an opportunity to clear some 
limited understanding of dynamics then...

> 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.

I am expressing what is coming out as an impression while studying the three 
different communities. You do not seem to get along well with each other on 
the fundamental level. You also remember that I proposed during these last 
few days that a remerge could have been of benefit to all. There are ways to 
achieve this, through a glue point. If you are interested, if anybody is 
interested, we can talk about this.

> > 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.

I am not accusing you, yes, you have taken my tidbits in the past and 
presented them as your own. Every time I talked to you there was a 
comfortable SVN commit when it came even to concepts. For that I have never 
forgiven you, nor I will because you have never been explicit about it. It 
causes me grief that you are unable to understand this, because in all 
honesty, I thought that you would have. In all honesty. As I said, I 
understand what you are going through, but you cared little about somebody 
else's time spent.

> 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?

Nope, you are again misreading. Thing is this. You claim to be the only one 
doing these things.

> 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.

I do not actually have to say bad things about the results of your work. You 
did some great things for LFS. That I have to admit. It is just that your way 
of doing things also targets at excluding people like me, who do not like to 
come out and vant what they have before they have actually implemented it. I 
approached you as a fellow developer and you have your own emails to prove 
that. And you know that we stopped having any discussion over a year ago 
because of what happened. I admit that you did try to rectify things a bit 
and it does you honor. But on the other hand, you do this again, and again 
and again.

> > 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.

Where you authorized to use things that were supposed to be given in anycase 
free to all? A thank you note is all I had asked back then and you know it. 
Or perhaps another misunderstanding? Too many details need cleanup.

> > 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.

My conclusions are drawn based on our mutual previous past. It is a bit bitter 
as you know.

> > 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.

You are asking me to trust you on this. I will do so provided the favor is 
exchanged.

> > 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.

I have been informed otherwise. In anycase, it does not matter. What it 
matters is that for all I know, you caused enough people grief with your 
decisions. I do not question your motives, your thoughts, your work. I only 
question your actions on the social aspect.

> > 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.

But you did not care for an eventual contributor who asked to work in private 
with a few people who could trust?

> > 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.

It honors you do admit this. And I will exchange this by admitting that you 
are valuable to LFS. Nobody said you were not. But your way of acting causes 
problems, imvho. It is only my opinion, and it may be wrong.

You do not seem to show any concern over some trivial but meaningful 
formalities. Perhaps that is the root of all evil.

> > 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 am referring to the unfortunate strife engineering taking place at irregular 
times, within which you are at times having heavy role in this. I am however, 
forced to accept that at times your interventions are for the better. Unlike 
others, I accept facts as they are.

> > 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?

Yes, just like the idiots who jumped gladly through hate mail to yours truly. 
Why? I am marvelled that they have not behaved in their usual ways.

> 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.

No, I do not have a skewed understanding of the word betrayed. I have not been 
betrayed by you since I stopped working with you. What I felt was 
dissapointment because I trusted you. I am still waiting to hear the proper 
explanation about many things related to all of this, and it should be better 
if we continued this in private and solve it.

This means that there is always the benefit of the doubt. If you want this 
settled, you know where and how to find me. If this is a misunderstanding ,it 
is a long standing one and I propose we resolve this now before everything 
else. It would be of mutual benefit. In private.

> --
> JH

GM



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list