1 |
Andrew Gaffney wrote: |
2 |
> Andrew D Kirch wrote: |
3 |
> |
4 |
>> I think it's best as a general rule to NEVER _EVER_ under any |
5 |
>> circumstances emulate paludis. |
6 |
>> |
7 |
> |
8 |
> While I'm not personally a fan of paludis, it doesn't help anyone to post crap |
9 |
> like that to any mailing list. Please take it elsewhere. Thanks. |
10 |
> |
11 |
> |
12 |
Why is it inappropriate to discuss the poor UI, and implementation of |
13 |
software we use especially in open source? Maybe if we're closed to |
14 |
valid argument against poor methodology we can fail like everyone else |
15 |
who develops closed minded (Debian) and closed source (long list here) |
16 |
software. Larry the Cow is deeply disappointed in you sir. |
17 |
|
18 |
Why is it not appropriate to note the prolonged damage that paludis and |
19 |
its associated personalities have done to the Gentoo community? This |
20 |
damage and resulting tree situation caused many to stop using Gentoo, |
21 |
myself included for a time. The diminished quality of the portage tree, |
22 |
and the open hostility of those involved with paludis caused injury to |
23 |
Gentoo, and it's reputation which is both significant and lasting. |
24 |
|
25 |
Why is it not appropriate to note that commandline arguments for paludis |
26 |
read like war and peace, and are a leading cause of repetitive stress |
27 |
injury in the open source community? And if a development mailing list |
28 |
where the merits of paludis and portage are being debated is not the |
29 |
correct forum to note the manifest shortcomings of one, then where is it? |
30 |
|
31 |
Andrew |