[Fwd: Wikipidia - Goodbye Red Hat and Fedora]

[Arthur Pemberton]

On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 4:42 PM, David G. Mackay <mackay_d at bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-10-22 at 17:20 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 11:03:07AM -0500, David G. Mackay wrote:
>> >
>> > On Wed, 2008-10-22 at 08:39 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
>> > > Unanswered:
>> > > > Is there similar outrage against upstreams as well?  Where is
> it?
>> >
>> > On this list, it's shouted down.  I commented some time ago about
> the
>> > rather toxic behavior of the python developers vis-a-vis breaking
>> > compatibility at virtually every release.  You would have thought
> that I
>> > had urinated in the holy water.
>> >
>> > It's an ugly little wart on the free software movement.  There's
> nowhere
>> > near the incentive to take care of your user base without a direct
>> > financial gain.  Not, mind you, that commercial ventures haven't
> done
>> > the same, but the consequences to them are more severe and direct.
>>
>> You don't get to dictate what the upstream project's priorities are.
>
> Dictate, no, criticize, yes.
>
>> If you don't like the fact that apps break with every new python
>> release (I don't like it either), then pick a different programming
>> language with an upstream whose priorities better align with your
>> needs. eg, Perl or Java or OCaml or any number of other languages.
>
> Well, for me, it means that I will use python for smaller projects, and
> probably java for large/persistent projects.  However, there are ripple
> effects in that people that have developed tools that I want to use in
> python, i. e. zope, are also placed in an untenable position.


>From what I understand, Python is designed to be parallel installable.
Just a tidbit of info I had come across.


-- 
Fedora 9 : sulphur is good for the skin
( www.pembo13.com )