On Thursday 28 February 2008 03:48:47 Jeremy Huntwork wrote: > George Makrydakis wrote: > > In what way(s) could you do this that diy-linux and clfs do not do > > already? How is it going to compete with the other two? Or three.. Or > > four... Or Infinity? > > I'm sorry for being dense, but I'm not sure I understand what you're > asking here.
You are not dense, you are using this verbal construct in a subtle and meaningful way to convey what you want; this is done either in conscious or unconscious manner, but it is done so. You then wish me to say it first. That is fine, it is a common truth for those who follow what happens in both foreground and background. My personal opinion is, for some time, the advances in LFS are practically backports from DIY-Linux (http://diy-linux.org) and Cross-LFS (http://cross-lfs.org which has nothing to do with lfs since it is an autonomous project like diy-linux). There is proof of that in the mailing lists here, and in the ones belonging to the respective projects. It may very well be that you will continue to bleed out forks for reasons that you can find in the latter portion of this reply email. The contenders to the "throne" are always a step ahead when we sum up the result, WHY? WHY are there at least TWO other projects achieving the goals you set as future goals already? WHY do they _have_ to be that many? WHY do they succeed where you fail? > George Makrydakis wrote: > > Combining from the other projects? How? Why? They already _have_ it > > combined. Why not work on _merging_ the communities into a single > > project? Doesn't that make more sense since the goals are apparently the > > same since you are choosing an evolutionary approach for LFS ? Other projects = cross-lfs, diy-linux. Things like alfs, halfs, jhalfs and the rest that are under the LFS brotherhood and protection are not separate projects imvho, they are just small attempts in order for some people to understand that the current way lfs is offered to its end users, is inadequate. It may deter further fragmentation of LFS, but it is not exactly helping it either. I believe that Gerard is referring to joining all the LFS sub projects. > Unless I misunderstood Gerard's proposal, that is what he is suggesting. > We don't have (seemingly) the manpower and community interest any more > to keep the current structure in place. I think the projects would have > to be merged in order to continue. What I am referring to is for some people to put their differences aside, sit on a table with the other two projects (cross-lfs, diy-linux) and discuss common action. Until then, you will be left out of hands because of divide and conquer. IT could also very well be that these few threads lately end up being lost amidst the political power struggle. Or it may be a way to send the competition(cross-lfs, diy-linux) off - track. The first one is bad for LFS, the second one is not going to happen, at least according to the analysis of the current situation. > [snip] >> George Makrydakis wrote: > > Isn't it a weakness in the social structure of LFS that it could not hold > > these resources together? Educational use is no excuse imvho. > > Very probably. And part of the issue, I think, has always been that > different people see LFS from different viewpoints. This will always be > the case to a certain extent, but perhaps, with a redesigned project, > the potential for social problems can be taken into consideration as > part of the re-design. The redesign of this project does not come out of an evolutionary necessity, but out of the need to save it from extinction. Why? Anyone who is familiar with evolutional mechanics knows that in evolution, you do not always need to fail, you just have to succeed less often. This is what happened to LFS. By all means, I do _not_ imply that is dead, I am saying that it is dying because of the standstill and backport based "innovation". Innovation that comes not as an original feature but as an add-on developed elsewhere. > > George Makrydakis wrote: > > Again, how can it be different from Gentoo, Sourcemage, T2, clfs, > > diy-linux, Archlinux, GoboLinux etc... the list is endless on the meta - > > distribution front. Package management is not going to help saving, if at > > all, anything. > > How it will be different is something that will have to be discussed. On what basis and who is it to call the shots? The same people that do not actually want to change anything? Is there to be a vote by people who can _prove_ what they do? Or is this just another popularity contest among dubious contenders? Related to the projects I mentioned above, they are meta-distros with a lot of "killer implementation" potential. The ones who study metadistributions, know exactly what I am talking about. > George Makrydakis wrote: > > I do not think it is geeky, it should be more "geeky" because there are > > MORE THINGS TO LEARN than how to build a toolchain, but i am a > > "bystander" who has no reason to doubt your intentions and is probably > > unimportant to you as a contributing opinion (for the time being, as some > > other people, I do not like some of your policies when it comes to > > "combining" things so there is really not much to contribute *here* but > > an opinion). > > I don't know what you refer to when speaking of 'policies for > combining'. In any case, many of former LFS "policies" are probably moot > at this stage, due to the recent heavy stagnation. Stagnation that people in LFS have caused, if I am allowed to state my opinion freely. How could you explain the fact that the other two projects (cross-lfs and diy-linux) with a lot less manpower and "fan hype" are right now technologically superior to LFS (overall)? You have been informed about your "combining" policies from cross-lfs and diy-linux both here and on the respective mailing lists. This is something that is well documented and it is unfortunate that there is no mention of it. Should you consider teaming up with cross-lfs and diy-linux (everything can be done, provided the political bloodshed between different parties STOPS). If there was a single project, then there would be a bright future for this collective effort. Else, some will remain at the toolchain level. And discuss, discuss, discuss, while others will do. This is bad for your project. > [snip] > > > Merging efforts (no matter to what you are referring to, you have a > > point). Now this is the first and only thing that should be really > > considered. I read that Mr. B You are absolutely correct on this one. > > Would you care to explain if you are actually referring to attempts like > > LeafOS (you and a couple of people where doing this long time ago, but it > > never lifted up), how things should be done so that they do not end up in > > a standstill? > > I doubt many people here were aware of the existence of LeafOS. But, > since you bring it up, it is a shame that it didn't achieve its goals. > It failed mostly because on a personal level, I didn't any longer have > the consistent time to give it. > > Anyway, LeafOS only existed because LFS did not seem to be moving > forward or doing much of anything, really. No comment. > And now, much of what is > being discussed on the LFS lists are core concepts and goals of the > abandoned LeafOS project. No comment. > I would have preferred for it to happen with > LFS in the first place, so I am happy now to hear these suggestions. When I read the words "I am happy now to hear these suggestions" something tells me that I should wait. And wait I will. > George Makrydakis >> > > --------------------------------------------------------- > > As to automation, package management ... give it a couple of days... > > Really. You are hardly expecting this. Hardly. You will have much to > > discuss about this in the following days. MUCH. And you will understand > > why some things developed patiently and unannounced before they ripe, > > create "glue points". > > --------------------------------------------------------- > > Jeremy Huntwork wrote: > > Of course. I still have a few suggestions and ideas to put forward, but > I am holding back a lot on these threads, because I'm waiting to see how > the community as a whole responds first. And, I want to see Gerard take > active action to make the decisions happen - to show that he is serious > in reanimating the project, instead of just talking about new ideas. The likeliest thing to happen would be to revive LVR in the end. This will only lead to another failure for reasons I could explain once you decide to put out what you think is right and why it could be wrong. I am somewhat puzzled at this last paragraph. You seem to be keeping your distances from the project founder? Now, I am 'dense' in reading this. In anycase, I was being literal when I said give it a couple of days. It was not meant as a figure of speech. Some of the cross-lfs people are informed of this. I will not focus further right now, since this is not the subject we are talking about. > George Makrydakis wrote: > > > To me, the only issue that is holding back LFS and fragmenting it, is its > > social structure. You are unlikely to have LFS-NG without taking into > > consideration this factor. Until you do, you will be bleeding out people > > elsewhere, or trying to "combine" things into branches etc. Other > > projects are not supposed to be component or conceptual supermarkets. > > Jeremy Huntwork wrote: > You may be right that the social structure needs help. Suggestions on > what needs fixing would be helpful, although, you may find that things > which bothered you previously about LFS aren't a serious issue at present. For some reason I am thinking of your very first, top-post paragraph in this reply... The problem is _not_ whether there are a serious issue, it is whether there are an issue at all. The two statements bare different meanings. Simple things that can make life easier (these apply to all, and come out of something called LFS community profiling) for whom it may concern. Pronouns are not to have a specific person in mind; implying otherwise is an incompetent, improper and inadequate use of subliminal messaging: 1) Admit that talking about things does not give you claim of intellectual property over them, especially if these things come from somewhere else. Also, it is rude is to do this continuously and claim ignorance of the fact. Other projects are not component and conceptual supermarkets without giving credit to them, I believe. 2) Effectively recognize the fact that LFS, as a project not only has some overlapping developers with the other groups, but because of certain policies it caused drifts among developers, targeted strife and other nuissances I would like to avoid to mention for the sake of the reader's time. 3) When somebody submits a proposal, he / she should receive proper assistance from this community and legitimate respect to the proposal if there is good evidence that there is both good will and ability to proceed. If somebody is offering to do something, he/she is surely not wanting to experience cannibalism, mailing list gang attacks or other shop - lifting tactics from people who stay only on the surface of what is being said and aim at a quick and useless popularity - uprising contest that bears no real fruits but say ME ME ME. The result? You demotivate people, you end up stagnating in the blood you are shedding from your own project. 4) Do not behave like you hold the Absolute Truth. Just because someone does not like the way you think or do things, it does not automatically mean that because of your self-acclaimed infallibility people are "free to fork". This is bad for your project. This is nonsense. This is utter nonsense and it is what caused the split between the various separate "build your own distro with your own rules" projects (LFS , cross-lfs, diy-linux), or people lose interest specifically in LFS. And LFS alone. 5) Dissolve niche behaviour when that emerges. Your problem is that you base too much of this project (LFS) in the power ladder that has been created due to the Absolute Truth Holder Syndrome. This last one is the degenerative disorder that afflicts LFS right now more than any other morbose entity. You either accept the truth as it is, or submit to the consequences (e.g. discuss, discuss, discuss over trivialities and end up doing nothing in the end). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Despite that, there are some _very_ bright people in LFS, and LFS is very lucky to have them. I wish they had more time and will. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 6) State your intentions clearly. 7) Perhaps some of the people majorly involved in this have understood that it is time to stop behaving the way they did. If that is the case, things should fare out well. If not and this is another PR stunt, you are to quietly give a final blow. I will limit myself to submitting a proposal for refining your community first, if I may. A technical proposal is to follow in anycase, some people from clfs know about it. Two days left, really. It has been a long time, hasn't it... > -- > JH Dux Vitae Ratio -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
