Nobody in this thread likes China. The take-away should be that even an option as terrible as Chima is much safer and attractive than the USA right now.
There is apparently one influential figure in Canada that even considers Russia a better option. Again, Russia is truly terrible. Just better than the US in his opinion.
Maybe let that sink in.
Europe yes. China even to a more limited extent ( at least for a while ).
Russia? You must be freaking kidding me. That is before even considering that Russia and the US are on the path to becoming close allies.
Let me just say that hierarchies are for breaking ties.
The normal process is that Linus prefers we all work through maintainers to cut down on the noise that comes to him. In this case, the maintainer is the reason the noise is coming to Linus. So, it will be up to him to settle it.
Perhaps. That is not my read. I hear Linus saying that he trusts the process and that sticking with it is the solution to working through the problem. He does not say that a maintainer blocking a technically sound patch is a problem. He does not say that he would reject the patch. He does say that the approach taken by Hector ( who is not the one that submitted the patch ) is the wrong one. If Linus had said that the technical approach or the code quality was a problem, I would agree with you. He did not object to either of those things. What he said is that social media is not the solution.
The problem with your timeline is that it completely leaves out the event(s) that Linus is objecting to. I am hoping that is unintentional on your part.
I will know what Linus thinks when he either accepts or rejects the submission from the R4L team.
Really seems like we are agreeing. I get that the limited package set is a feature. I also get that it is both too small and too enterprise to satisfy most people you would describe as a “SO” precisely because they are probably normal people.
You gave the excellent example of Spotify and suggested a Flatpak for that. Honestly, I am not sure where we are in disagreement. Especially since I started by “mostly agreeing” myself. We even agree on that. :)
The release notes refer to the “few remaining issues”.
https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gimp/-/milestones/3#tab-issues
There seem to be 115 issues on there which is more than “a few”. However, only 3 are listed as blockers. But a dozen of them are crashes.
How many of these need to be fixed before the 3.0 release? Does anybody know?
In the era of Flatpak, I kind of agree with you.
The primary drawback is the complete lack of packages. A home user is going to want something not included and then things fall apart. Flatpaks and Distrobox have made that a lot better.
If you could get away with a RHEL core and Flatpak for apps, you would have a pretty solid setup for a “normal” person.
Yes. And historically, what is the right response to a country that is doing that?
I have a lot of sympathy. I feel awful for them. Unfortunately, it is the kind of sympathy I would feel for an enemy soldier that I think is maybe fighting against their will. I feel bad for them but there is no way I am putting my gun down while they are around. They are still the enemy and “they” are still trying to kill me. We are not going to be friends.
The project has said it is a goal to move to a dual language model. So, no, it is not reasonable.
What would be reasonable would be technical arguments or pragmatic logistical concerns with the goal of finding solutions. What would be reasonable would be asking for and accepting help.
None of the reasonable stuff is happening. So, it not reasonable.
I doubt you care but others may want to know that you just hit the nail on the head. Just not the way you think.
All the Rust folks want is for “technically superior” solutions to be accepted on their merits. The exact problem is that some influential Linux folks have decided that “technically superior” is not the benchmark.
Take the exact case that has led to the current debate. The maintainer said explicitly that he will NEVER accept Rust. It was NOT a technical argument. It was a purely political one.
In the Ted Tso debacle. a high profile Rust contributor quite Linux with the explicit explanation that the best technical solutions were being rejected and that the C folks were only interested in political arguments instead of technical ones.
If it was true that “technically superior” solutions were being accepted, the R4L team would be busy building those instead of arguing.
It is just a desktop app, not server software.
Unless you mean Distrobox.