--On Friday, June 06, 2008 08:02:44 +1000 Peter Jeremy
> On 2008-Jun-05 10:33:18 -0500, Paul Schmehl <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> --On Thursday, June 05, 2008 18:39:07 +1000 Peter Jeremy
>> <email@example.com> wrote:
>>> On 2008-Jun-04 22:22:33 -0700, Jo Rhett <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>>> And please stop with the loaded language. I'm not asking anyone to work
>>>> for me. I am suggesting that it is perhaps too early to EoL 6.2 because
>>>> 6.3 isn't ready yet.
>>> So you have stated. When asked to provide evidence to backup that
>>> statement, you have refused. Since you are the one claiming that
>>> "6.3 isn't ready yet", the onus is on you to put up or shut up.
>> That is a blatant lie.
> I take exception to being called a lier. Please either explain which of
> my above statements is false or apologise.
I apologize. I reacted in anger because I felt the OP was being savagely
attacked rather than being responded to with professionalism. Later in the
thread some folks got around to asking which PRs he was referring to, but that
was after attacking him for having the temerity to suggest that perhaps 6.2
shouldn't be EOL.
>> He has stated repeatedly that there are *known*
>> bugs, complete with bug reports, that are not resolved and that affect the
>> hardware he uses. He has also stated that there is no need for him to
>> provide further evidence of an already documented bug,
> I agree that he has made those statements - and those statements may
> even be true. When asked to provide details of the bugs or references
> to those problems, he has refused. Random, unsubstantiated claims are
> hardly evidence of anything.
I don't recall him ever refusing. I think after his initial post he's been
forced to defend himself from attack from 360 degrees. It's rather hard to
focus on the facts when you're being attacked like that. That's what provoked
me to respond as I did - to you and to others.
> To summarise, so far the OP has made a series of unsubstantianted
> claims about vaguely defined problems on vaguely defined hardware.
> When asked for more details, he has refused.
I think that's an unfair characterization. He stated that he had noted
numerous bugs in 6.3 (submitted PRs) that he perceived affected him personally
and so he chose not to update to 6.3. He then asked if 6.2 couldn't be
extended farther. That seems like a reasonable question to ask. A simple,
professional answer would have settled the matter quickly.
But it was all downhill from there.
I'm not here to defend him. He can do that himself. What I took offense to
was the gang mentality of jumping on him and accusing him of things no one
could possibly have knowledge of and the childish, immature reaction of some on
> Exactly what do you expect the FreeBSD developers to do?
I expect the FreeBSD developers to continue to produce the highest quality OS
on the market. I also expect them to treat their customers with respect and
professionalism and patience. I don't think that's too much to ask. Shouldn't
the developers' behavior match the high quality of their work?
I recently had to deal with two PRs for ports that I maintain. I initially
thought both were rather silly. After testing, I found that one was not, and
in fact, the user had uncovered a problem I would never have thought to test
for (and obviously hadn't.)
Had I jumped on them for not giving more details or harangued the committer for
not pointing out my errors, I would have missed an opportunity to improve both
a port and my knowledge of porting. But I withheld my personal views and
approached both submitters with respect and professionalism. In the end, I was
wrong. But no one but me knew that (until now) because I withheld my personal,
I'm not bragging. I don't think that's anything to brag about. I just think
we'd all benefit if we could keep the personal opinions personal and deal with
requests on the list with respect and professionalism, just as we would like to
>> yet he is willing to
>> provide equipment with 6.3 RELEASE installed if any developer needs a
>> platform to test and troubleshoot the bugs.
> In the absence of any details about the problems he believes he has,
> such an offer is meaningless.
You can't possibly mean that. Your choice of words is horrible. How can it
ever be meaningless to offer assistance to the community, however small? I've
noticed this attitude on more than one occasion. It's as if "we" are the
little people, not fit to be in the same room with the mighty developers.
Rest assured, each of us has talents that others can't match and each of us has
weaknesses that others can expose. We'd all be better off if we focused on the
former and de-emphasized the latter.
> Reading his actual posting, it reads
> more like "who would like to do my QA/validation for me and fix any
> bugs they find for free". In general, the underlying problem is lack
> of developer resources, rather than lack of hardware.
OK. When he originally posted his question, someone should have simply said,
"The EOL issue is well settled and no longer open to debate. However, we'd be
happy to try and resolve any issues you think you might have upgrading to 6.3
if you can provide us with the following:
1) Specific issues including references to specific PRs
2) A list of any assistance you can or would be willing to provide to help
isolate these issues
That alone would have wasted much less of the valuable developers' limited
resources. (And I mean that with all sincerity. I have the highest respect
for what you folks do and wish I had the skills to contribute.)
>> What is the purpose of the insults and denigration?
> I fail to see where I have insulted or denigrated anyone. OTOH, your
> first words to me were an insult.
I know you fail to see that. I've noticed others have as well. That doesn't
mean they aren't preceived that way any more than your perception of his
approach to this issue isn't at all what he thought it was.
Misunderstanding cuts both ways.
As if it wasn't already obvious,
my opinions are my own and not
those of my employer.