1 |
On Thu, 05 Jun 2014 02:34:49 -0400 |
2 |
Greg Woodbury <redwolfe@×××××.com> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> On 06/04/2014 11:11 AM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: |
5 |
> It is a discussion about technological things, yes, but the art of |
6 |
> dealing with other people *is* politics [1]. |
7 |
|
8 |
Politics are also about dealing with power, not alone people; it is |
9 |
possible to give a robot a lot of power, that doesn't imply that the |
10 |
creator or buyer of that robot has power. The robot will have its own |
11 |
will; that will isn't necessarily depending on what people tell the |
12 |
robot to do, but also on what the robot will percept from nature. This |
13 |
then all boils down to the nature's will; there may be a person, robot |
14 |
or server with a lot of power, but one day the power of nature decides. |
15 |
|
16 |
> Systemd *may* well be technologically superior in terms of having a |
17 |
> better method of doing things. (It certainly makes adding items to the |
18 |
> mix easier than re-doing all the numbering in SysVinit.) |
19 |
> |
20 |
> Unfortunately, the advocates and implementers made some major |
21 |
> political choices when they (apparently deliberately) chose to put |
22 |
> the systemd stuff in /usr/lib instead of /lib. It was pointed out |
23 |
> that this abrogated certain parts of the FHS, forced those who would |
24 |
> like to adopt it to *not* being able to continue using their machines |
25 |
> they way they wished to (I.e. they had to choose between several |
26 |
> potentially major changes to do so -- don't have a separate /usr or |
27 |
> be forced to use a kernel initrd/initramfs method in order to do so.) |
28 |
|
29 |
This is the power of putting things in such places against the power of |
30 |
the FHS; Gentoo uses its power to allow parts of these powers to exist, |
31 |
as "Gentoo does not consider the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard to be an |
32 |
authoritative standard, although much of our policy coincides with it.". |
33 |
|
34 |
http://devmanual.gentoo.org/general-concepts/filesystem |
35 |
|
36 |
You note how it abrogates part of the power of the FHS, but you don't |
37 |
mention its consequences and how Gentoo deals with those consequences; |
38 |
this highlights a power, instead of how that power affects people. |
39 |
|
40 |
So, yes, eventually politics deal with people; but it does so through |
41 |
means of dealing with power, only looking at the power or only looking |
42 |
at the people deceives one from the total picture. Look at both instead. |
43 |
|
44 |
> These were not mere technical choices, but highly political/social |
45 |
> choices. Early on, the violation of the "principle of least surprise" |
46 |
> could have been easily fixed by simply correcting the placement of |
47 |
> things from /usr back to / but the developers doing the work *chose* |
48 |
> not to see it as a mistake or poor choice, and steadfastly refused to |
49 |
> accept corrections or patches to improve the work by fixing what many |
50 |
> saw as a mistake. |
51 |
|
52 |
Where did we agree with the power of the "principle of least surprise"? |
53 |
|
54 |
What kind of surprise towards the users are we talking about? Short |
55 |
term surprise? Long term surprise? How does that affect our users? |
56 |
|
57 |
It can be a mistake in the short term, but that doesn't make it one in |
58 |
the long term; things work out well, it seems, where is the problem? |
59 |
|
60 |
> That placement error was not the only social/political mistake they |
61 |
> made either. Other suggestions and improvements were offered and were |
62 |
> ignored or rejected in rather flammable verbiage. |
63 |
|
64 |
This paragraph misses a reference to the mistakes and verbiage. |
65 |
|
66 |
> As it happens, some of the parties involved work for companies that |
67 |
> actually pay them to do work on Linux and FOSS, and have leveraged |
68 |
> that role to the fullest. |
69 |
|
70 |
Some people give up on money, to reach something else in their life; |
71 |
"Hey, honey, I don't want you to move to Silicon Valley; stay with me.". |
72 |
|
73 |
> Actually, that is not the objection. Developers do and have always |
74 |
> done that, but often observed much more concern with a) letting folks |
75 |
> who use their stuff know what they were doing, and b) giving a bit |
76 |
> more lead time when introducing major changes. |
77 |
|
78 |
The "road map" concept exists for that purpose; however, a lot of |
79 |
developers don't use such thing or use it in some other way (TODOs, |
80 |
bugs that capture feature requests and important changes, ...); what is |
81 |
however a more used concept are "change logs", where these kind of |
82 |
things are mentioned. But can users track all upstream's major changes? |
83 |
|
84 |
> Mo, you misunderstand. TINC is/was a humorous reminder that there was |
85 |
> NOT a real "cabal", but merely the appearance of one in the minds of |
86 |
> those not involved in the day-to-day operations of real systems and |
87 |
> networks. The human mind sees patterns and invents explanations when |
88 |
> there is not enough information available. There is no reason to |
89 |
> ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by ignorance or |
90 |
> stupidity (willful ignorance.) |
91 |
|
92 |
This leaves out "possibilities"; a possible explanation doesn't make it |
93 |
a factual true explanation of the matter at hand, like how you've |
94 |
mentioned mistakes and verbiage above. |
95 |
|
96 |
It might be true to you, because you might have these references; it |
97 |
could also be a possibility to you, because you think you saw such |
98 |
pattern but can't bring it back up; ... |
99 |
|
100 |
Now, to me it will by default be a possibility; because for it to be |
101 |
a factual true to me, I need to be given the reference I've requested. |
102 |
|
103 |
> In *your* opinion. I have heard some surprising folks say things in |
104 |
> private that they would never choose to state publicly. And that |
105 |
> covers a lot of people in over 53 years of programming. |
106 |
|
107 |
I could've heard the opposite; who of us both will people believe? |
108 |
|
109 |
> I *do* no misunderstand this at all. You attribute to folks (myself |
110 |
> included) motivations or misunderstandings that you simply do not have |
111 |
> the information or knowledge to know for certain. |
112 |
|
113 |
Consider that similar attributions are seen from you. |
114 |
|
115 |
> If someone sees something as a problems that you don't agree is a |
116 |
> "problem" it may just be that your experience or expertise is |
117 |
> different. |
118 |
> |
119 |
> There is a large amount of ego preservation and self-promotion |
120 |
> involved in these arguments, and many don't have enough insight to |
121 |
> recognize that humor and social skill are necessary to succeed. |
122 |
|
123 |
Boring jokes and social interruptions stall[1] instead of succeed. |
124 |
|
125 |
> It merely claims to be a meritocracy. But like several other |
126 |
> *political* models, it boils down to an oligarchy, where those who |
127 |
> obtain power by whatever means, whether consciously or unconsciously, |
128 |
> do what they must to preserve it. |
129 |
> |
130 |
> And the early days of Usenet was deliberately modeled in a |
131 |
> pseudo-democratic manner. An opinion poll was set up in order to gain |
132 |
> some idea about the potential and perceived use for a topic area. If |
133 |
> one wanted a topic group established on a widespread basis one needed |
134 |
> a fair bit of social skill and perception in order to do so. |
135 |
|
136 |
Nothing holds you from starting a poll on a poll site and do that |
137 |
today; you'll however note that such poll, either now or back in the |
138 |
days, doesn't force people to do things. |
139 |
|
140 |
Power's will goes hand in hand with people's will. |
141 |
|
142 |
> Those who has the gold makes the rules? |
143 |
|
144 |
In Belgium we say "Klant is koning", |
145 |
which translates to "The customer is the king"; |
146 |
you might have a lot of money, that doesn't mean you can set up |
147 |
whichever rule you want and expect that behavior to be blindly followed. |
148 |
|
149 |
No, customers will just move on to the next company; regardless of the |
150 |
gold a company has. The same goes with people in politics, you might |
151 |
have all the gold to advertise yourself; but that doesn't mean you get a |
152 |
majority of votes and a political reformation in your favor. |
153 |
|
154 |
> > So if you want to change the rules, start writing some code. |
155 |
> |
156 |
> Been there. Done That. Have the T-shirt. |
157 |
> BUT, for *some* reason, I still care. |
158 |
|
159 |
No, really; if you want to form rules, write some code and get the |
160 |
people you want to change the rules for to be interested in your work. |
161 |
|
162 |
> ------------ Footnotes -------- |
163 |
> |
164 |
> [1] Those who are politically active constantly deal with the more |
165 |
> politically naive who complain "there isn't really any difference |
166 |
> between <group_a> or <group_b> - they all suck." This can be compared |
167 |
> to a technologically naive person saying "major software projects can |
168 |
> be thrown together by a bunch of programmers just sitting around |
169 |
> together at a coffee shop over the weekend." (Don't laugh -- a US |
170 |
> Supreme Court Justice said almost exactly that within the past two |
171 |
> weeks.) |
172 |
|
173 |
[1] It really does. |
174 |
|
175 |
-- |
176 |
With kind regards, |
177 |
|
178 |
Tom Wijsman (TomWij) |
179 |
Gentoo Developer |
180 |
|
181 |
E-mail address : TomWij@g.o |
182 |
GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D |
183 |
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D |