Jean Charles Passard
jcharles at provectio.org
Sun Dec 30 14:04:36 PST 2007
George Makrydakis a écrit :
> Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>> Hey All,
> Greetings, with some delay.
>> Just a quick note to say hello and respond to some recent concerns about
>> the inactivity of LFS projects.
> It would come as of no surprise, especially to you.
>> For me, as I'm sure is the case for several others, several things in my
>> personal life have taken up nearly all my time lately. LFS gets pushed
>> into the background.
>> I think we'd all agree, especially since we don't get paid for our work,
>> that work at LFS is completely voluntary. Even so, we work hard to
>> create a solid, stable product that in many ways reaches towards the
>> level of 'Professional', and that is exactly where we want it to be.
> Agreed, but that is the way F/LOSS works, most of the time. And since the
> time dedicated to this is detracted from personal spare time, there is a
> huge list of reasons why you have to respect everybody's time and good
>> Unfortunately, to keep LFS there, there needs to be enough time and
>> energy devoted to it. For me, that simply won't happen anymore unless I
>> can properly schedule my time to allow for LFS and reserve space for it
>> - space that I know I *will* use for development of LFS.
> There are several, more competitive and unfortunately for you, extremely
> more competent projects. Cross-LFS and DIY-Linux are an example, and they
> are far from being just "forks" right now. It is also of interest of how
> feelings between the three communities *are* right now. I also know that
> there was an attempt by you to create LeafOS, which would have been yet
> another fork, initially. And it has stopped because of the same reasons why
> LFS is facing its own problems for some time now.
>> To that end, I wonder if it would be at all useful to anyone else to
>> create a publicly shared Calendar that would show, among other things,
>> when each of the devs are scheduled to work on the various projects? Not
>> that anything would be set in stone - but at least it might give
>> everyone an idea of who is doing what and when, and perhaps move all of
>> us to be more regular in development?
>> Any Thoughts?
> A shared calendar...
> You would require a greater number of people to join the project, people who
> are to often *disagree* with the people in management right now and do not
> appreciate the kind of public relations that seemingly hold LFS together,
> just like they do not particularly enjoy having plausible concerns
> regarding *plagiarism* done on the conscious and deliberate level, from
> time to time.
> The fact that LFS broke into several other projects that took a life of
> their own has nothing to do with the fact that you wish to follow the
> pedantic route, and offer something fun to learn from. Fun is irrelevant in
> this particular case, for if that was the case, a simple tutorial on a
> static page would have been more than sufficient. It has to do with the
> intricate web of politics surrounding the LFS and that have been the cause
> for its fall from grace, for some of its past users at least.
> It should be of no wonder that most users do not choose to adopt LFS
> anymore, despite of how they feel about it. Historically, it may have its
> place, but right now it seems to only backport features from cross-LFS and
> diy-linux, without the necessary accompanying *credit*.
> F/LOSS, among other things, works on a credit basis.
> Therefore, if you need a calendar, here is task one: How to enlarge user and
> developer base, the right way.
> Personally, I think that some people, you included, actually have a very
> particular agenda on how things should be done and who is not invited into
> the party; therefore, it might be ill - advised to ask for opinions you are
> not to accept, a priori. Not to mention illogical.
> Use the proper credit system, find somebody to stand for the unity of your
> project, accept reality: various projects like diy-linux and cross-lfs took
> form because the arguments presented were valid but the "fathering"
> community would not accept them. People who wanted to contribute, started
> moving away. This is your major problem. It is not a contribution problem,
> but it is an attribution and management problem.
> LFS cannot continue to exist simply because it ports the work of other
> projects into it, like it does with cross-lfs and diy-linux. It should have
> enough reasons to survive on its own.
> In a few words: Work on making others trust you, because that is of no
> marginal relevance at all. Strife and flashy, order - like announcements,
> do not contribute to progress, at all.
> This is from someone who has had a great respect for this project. Do not
> think otherwise.
> Enjoy your holidays and good luck.
Hello george, pleased to read you.
I have a great respect to lfs projetct too and to cross-lfs too, but I
am a bit disapointed by by alfs.
May be we will talk a day on irc as once on past ?
More information about the alfs-discuss