| 1 |
On 01/09/2014 03:42 PM, Igor wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hello Duncan, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Thursday, January 9, 2014, 9:59:50 PM, you wrote: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Thank you for the reply. I started to comment first... but it was more |
| 7 |
> philosophy a mature and grown up, experienced man and I don't think |
| 8 |
> I have right to comment it. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Statistically if you have more users the probability of the system |
| 11 |
> survival of any architecture, philosophy or type is higher. People |
| 12 |
> learn, they're not fixed and if they at the beginning do not share |
| 13 |
> the philosophy of the system but they can use it - they may like it, |
| 14 |
> understand it and follow it and support later. Many people I asked |
| 15 |
> are not minding to help Gentoo getting better by turning on |
| 16 |
> feedback. If you remember - feedback worked well for Perl once and |
| 17 |
> many used it and Perl is very traditional. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> It's like a chess game. You have the system in it's prime. There is |
| 20 |
> already one fork from Gentoo. There will be more. It's inevitable. You |
| 21 |
> have to understand that not all the developers share the same |
| 22 |
> philosophy - and it OK. |
| 23 |
> And they may fork Gentoo with time and pull half of the team to their |
| 24 |
> side. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> When there is a competition between systems with equal philosophy the |
| 27 |
> only thing that stands between who is going to live and who is going |
| 28 |
> to die is the number of users. |
| 29 |
> The fight will focus not around philosophy or system but around gaining |
| 30 |
> user support. The competitor can build a better, more friendly system |
| 31 |
> sharing basically the same design and he will win it over. |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> To keep in power it's in your deepest interest to close the open gates that |
| 34 |
> invite competition while the power is in your hands. This is a failure |
| 35 |
> many grown up companies made they belive they're forever and gods. I could |
| 36 |
> share with you privately with several examples that prove that concept |
| 37 |
> wrong. |
| 38 |
> |
| 39 |
> Your competitors will build basically the same system targeting the |
| 40 |
> same philosophy but more user oriented, friendly. User oriented - means |
| 41 |
> each user opinion matters. |
| 42 |
> |
| 43 |
> There might be millions of users but each is treated like he is the only one. |
| 44 |
> |
| 45 |
> |
| 46 |
> PortageQOS is small step, it's not everything or main part of the |
| 47 |
> system, it's a just small contribution. But it will close the door and |
| 48 |
> you'll have another peaceful 8 years to rule. |
| 49 |
> |
| 50 |
Right here is the big problem: you're not looking at this from the |
| 51 |
perspective of the average Gentoo developer. We don't care about market |
| 52 |
share. We don't care whether we're on top for another few years. There |
| 53 |
are several forks of Gentoo. I doubt most devs care about them. I |
| 54 |
personally know that we're not going to compete with Debian, which has a |
| 55 |
huge contributor, or Ubuntu or Red Hat, which have whole companies |
| 56 |
behind them. You're selling this as if you're selling to a company which |
| 57 |
wants to be on the top of the market and beating out competitors, and |
| 58 |
that's not what we are. We are a source-based distro that requires some |
| 59 |
effort from users, and people want that or they don't want it. |
| 60 |
> What we need is a vote YES or NO. If you against it - vote NO. It's |
| 61 |
> perfectly normal, if there would be no NO there would be no need voting. |
| 62 |
> |
| 63 |
> |
| 64 |
>> Actually, in that regard it's very possible that gentoo's long planned |
| 65 |
>> and worked toward cvs-to-git conversion will help finally bust that |
| 66 |
>> barrier for gentoo as well. Time will tell I guess, but that's one more |
| 67 |
>> reason to try to help make it happen. |
| 68 |
> |
| 69 |
> |
| 70 |
> |
| 71 |
> |
| 72 |
Chris Reffett |
Archives