1 |
On Feb 4, 2008 7:50 AM, Alec Warner <antarus@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> On 2/3/08, Jan Bilek <clonolu@×××××.com> wrote: |
3 |
> |
4 |
> |
5 |
> > - Gentoo used to be 'bleeding edge' - it's not anymore. |
6 |
> |
7 |
> I'm really digging for specifics here. 'bleeding edge' is very |
8 |
> unspecific. It is my experience that major updates are available |
9 |
> hours or days after release. Are you dissatisfied that this is not |
10 |
> true for some packages, or dissatisfied that the packages are marked |
11 |
> for testing and masked instead of being stable or ~arch? |
12 |
|
13 |
A couple of years ago when a new version of any application appeared |
14 |
some Gentoo users popped out in some discussion immediately laughing |
15 |
"haha, we've got it in our official tree, we are the first ones..." - |
16 |
Gentoo used to be famous for that;-) |
17 |
|
18 |
When I started with Gentoo my /etc/portage/package.use used to be |
19 |
empty. Now I have a lot of ~x86s (and I have never had any trouble |
20 |
with them - do all of them need to be ~ed?). Obviously I am not the |
21 |
only one - unfortunately the discussions I have read about it are not |
22 |
in English but I can tell you I seem to have observed some kind of a |
23 |
trend: users leaving Gentoo and choosing Arch - some of them |
24 |
explicitly stated that it was because of too many ~archs they needed: |
25 |
(Czech)http://www.abclinuxu.cz/blog/atom/2005/6/proc-jsem-presel-z-gentoo-na-arch |
26 |
- Why I left Gentoo and chose Arch. For those who understand Czech and |
27 |
are interested in fiery discussions - see also: |
28 |
http://www.abclinuxu.cz/blog/idea/2008/1/gentoo-nam-umira-mozna-jenom-trochu-hnije.-co-ted |
29 |
http://www.abclinuxu.cz/blog/jkt/2008/1/re-gentoo-nam-umira-mozna-jenom-trochu-hnije.-co-ted |
30 |
http://www.abclinuxu.cz/blog/idea/2008/1/hleda-se-nahrada-za-gentoo-second-round |
31 |
- you can see many users claiming they left Gentoo and have chosen |
32 |
Arch. I am not saying it means anything about Gentoo - but I think |
33 |
it's good to know about it. |
34 |
|
35 |
I am not saying it's necessarily bad thing to be a bit slower than the |
36 |
most bleeding-edge distros. Maybe it's because Gentoo has better QA |
37 |
than for example Arch. Maybe this is just one of these things that |
38 |
need to be explained to users - a communication issue again. But some |
39 |
people claim it is because of a lack of manpower in Gentoo - in that |
40 |
case we might want to re-think recruitment process. |
41 |
|
42 |
|
43 |
> Arrogant? I'd imagine some are; I personally try not to be and I'm |
44 |
> sure I fail at it quite often. |
45 |
> |
46 |
> I don't think Gentoo is a club for elitests |
47 |
|
48 |
I don't think that either. I just wanted to say that I had observed |
49 |
many users who think so and many of them claim to have left Gentoo |
50 |
because of that - which means there is something wrong with |
51 |
communication again. Why are Gentoo developers perceived as arrogant? |
52 |
Does the arrogant minority get more attention than decent majority? |
53 |
Why? |
54 |
I think Gentoo needs better tools to manage it's PR. |
55 |
|
56 |
|
57 |
> I certainly develop for myself and not for users. Now this is a fine |
58 |
> line to walk. Developing for yourself means you work at your own |
59 |
> pace; it doesn't give you the right to be mean to folks or to |
60 |
> contribute negatively. It means you don't really get deadlines and |
61 |
> you get to choose what to work on regardless of others input. |
62 |
> |
63 |
> I would counter-argue that a *subset* of users have unrealistic |
64 |
> expectations such as having ebuilds in the tree hours after release, |
65 |
> or fixing a bug just because it was filed, or asking for crazy code |
66 |
> changes to the package manager to fix their corner case that is not |
67 |
> sane. The point is that most developers are pretty nice and will |
68 |
> probably help you if you ask in a courteous manner and most users are |
69 |
> nice to talk to and help. |
70 |
|
71 |
I agree - absolutely. |
72 |
|
73 |
|
74 |
> We don't have enough cohesion right now to present a unified front. |
75 |
> PR is composed of only so many folks and those folks in turn are |
76 |
> driven by events from developers and users in a bottom up fashion; aka |
77 |
> they don't report news unless they are told or they know about it. We |
78 |
> have about 100+ mailing lists for projects and no one can monitor them |
79 |
> all. This was supposed to be how the GWN operated; news would |
80 |
> percolate to the GWN folks who would create a weekly newsletter; |
81 |
> however submissions stopped coming in which is why the news stopped. |
82 |
> I think many users enjoyed the content in the GWN and I think we could |
83 |
> possibly try something like that again. How do we notify users that |
84 |
> the news is basically driven by their input? We have no reporters; |
85 |
> which means we need people to act as them for us. |
86 |
|
87 |
Yes - reporters - I like that idea. Active PR. Now Gentoo has mainly |
88 |
passive PR which means that it gets attention only when problems and |
89 |
conflicts occur - bad publicity. |
90 |
|
91 |
IMO Gentoo needs a better conflict-management tool to manage internal |
92 |
relations (a better and more powerful mechanism how to watch and |
93 |
possibly get rid of troublemakers before many developers and users are |
94 |
lost because of their behavior, and maybe some other way how to solve |
95 |
the conflict without at least one side of a dispute leaving Gentoo...) |
96 |
and proactive positive PR. |
97 |
|
98 |
Thanx, Jan. |
99 |
-- |
100 |
gentoo-nfp@l.g.o mailing list |