>>>>> "fm" == Fredrich Maney <fredrichma...@gmail.com> writes:
fm> changing the default toolset (without notification)
I wouldn't wish for notification all the time and tell people they
cannot move unless they notify everyone, or you will get a bunch of
CYA disclaimers and still have no input. And if you won't take the
time to discuss and compromise, you should not be allowed to block
people trying to improve things by demanding they seek you out, beg
for Your Obstinence's attention, and yeild and appeal for the
generosity of your blessing before they can move.
This is the recipe for a stagnant, bit-rotted system, and it's the
*FIRST* attitude the Linux camp threw over the railing.
fm> from the expected native tools to external tools in order to
fm> "make OpenSolaris more user friendly and familiar to the Linux
fm> crowd".
Yes! I agree it's a very bad reason. I've yelled at not a few Linux
people who came to BSD and complained the installer wasn't friendly
because it didn't have white-on-blue text. I told them we are
building an OS so here are the .tar.gz which is all I ever use, so
don't talk to me of this remedial installer. If you want to build
installers only, you know where to find the other tent.
``The old tools are unmaintained, ancient and not supporting expected
modern standards and features needed to get work done conveniently,
and not supporting the stream formats and shell scripts of most other
systems (not just Linux ones!), AND don't come with source,'' are
several really good reasons. I think you are WAY too easy on
yourselves to say these people want something familiar when some of us
really want something that works well and is not frozen or abandoned.
However, just moving the path around is not enough. Whatever tools
are going to be the Default ones, the ZFS-specific features need to be
added to THOSE tools, not just to some tools somewhere that I have to
go hunting for. which is how this thread began. It wasn't about
``OMG a GNUism! why was I not INFORMED?!,'' it was about why is this
ZFS feature missing from the Default tool?
This probably means there should eventually be ONE set of default
tools, unless we are really going to meticulously add these ZFS ACL
features and every other future architecture to both GNU and ancient
usr/bin tools and ancient xpg4 tools and xpg6 tools and ucb tools and
ancient 5bin tools, forever.
I don't care if the default tools are Linux tools or not, but the
default tools should be the newest ones not the oldest ones as they
are now, should not be bit-rotted, should work somewhat well with
other systems, and should come with source. If the legacy tools can
be made to do this by people who love them, I think that's great, but
if they cannot, then ad-hominem attacks and vendor-pandering should
not stonewall those reasonable expectations of openness, development,
and interoperability, because they are *necessary for survival*, and
they are not Linux-pandering.
And being the Default tool doesn't just mean coming first in PATH. It
means, when you add some new filesystem ACL framework, you add it to
the Default tool. I think the real mistake is imagining there are
enough users and developers on the boat for people to ``choose'' the
``feel'' of their environment. It's better to make some screaming NIH
people unhappy and have _one_ system that works well. That's the real
opportunity to surpass Linux IMHO because sometimes things over there
do not work well.
pgp0kKAxxc4hb.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
