jhuntwork at lightcubesolutions.com
Fri May 18 08:12:05 PDT 2012
On 5/18/12 5:22 AM, Qrux wrote:
> But, let's not make it a crime to clarify. If Ken would rather assert
> that I'm not "new" to the community, then to the extent that his
> assertion is valid I'd say that I see a lot of GroupThink(TM) in LFS.
> Most is probably good. But there are often ruffled feathers when
> long-held assumptions from time immemorial are questioned. I figure
> decisions about LFS aren't usually proofs. It stands to reason, then
> that those decisions can be questioned.
I could be wrong, but I think what is happening is that the length and
style of your emails reads as a bit aggressive and ends up being a
I do agree with you on at least one point - there tends to be an
attitude here in LFS-land of "if it's not broken, don't fix it." I think
this is fine where truly valid, i.e., the current methods do exactly
what is expected and modifying it provides no gain. However, I think
this principle is often misapplied for two main reasons:
1. People assume what end-users expect out of LFS with little or no
backing evidence. (Note this one can be applied to both sides of this
2. Tradition outranks reason (this has been systemic of much of the open
source world, not just LFS) - we've done it this way for years, people
expect it to be this way, this is how it will always be.
To get past both of these, I think we really just need to get over
ourselves. LFS is huge - larger than we know because we don't always get
feedback from those that read and implement - and it's impact is huge.
We should take this into more consideration...
The world is not a static place, especially the world of computing. Just
because we've done something a certain way for a long time and it
brought us successfully to this point doesn't mean that there is not now
a compelling reason to do it differently. Perhaps we chose this method
previously because there were no better alternatives at the time? I
think it's a mistake to say "LFS is done and only in maintenance mode"
because they way people use and interact with computers changes - even
in the Linux world. LFS needs more thought/energy and experimentation.
More information about the lfs-dev