Cristian Rodríguez wrote: ---- It's so nice to be able to see your last name instead of a bunch of diamonds. Seriously... that perl had been forceable broken -- I majorly complained to the perl community that they were not playing ball -- that all the major apps paid attention to LOCALE settings, except for perl. But perl I/O is broken by default to be non-symmetric in a unicode environment, because it breaks UTF-8 encoding in the range 128-255. (it uses LATIN-1) because the code-point numbers are the same -- but that doesn't change the fact that it messes up documents -- that wouldn't have happened if they stuck with binary OR moved to UTF-8. But the got in the middle and stuck with binary <256, and UTF-8 >255, So in most modern unix systems it's just wrong. In 5.16, if you put "use 5.16" or some use feature thing at the top of your file, it gets it right again... which it hasn't since 5.8.1 That perl is the app you choose to call unstable I find ironic. The last thing that happened was I asked them about moving database description manpages from section 1 to section 5... or about devices to section 4 ... but I was told perl has always put it's manpages in section 1, so to change it might cause confusion. I described the perils of a complete and absolute resistance to all change, with a story relayed to me in a driver's ed class about somemone who insisted on barreling down a road because he was the first and it didn't matter that they put in a stop light after him being there for 30 years.. he would still run it... and the 5-yr-old girl crossing on walk didn't know he was suppose to be given the RoW, even if she had seen him. So not changing, *at all* is bad too. (and that got me kicked from the p5p list).. You guys are polar opposites -- your level of change approaches chaos, theirs parallels the dinosaurs. Even their high priest, like guido van r. w/python, realized that the first design had some nasty flaws that people now called sacred features. Unlike the python folks, the perl folks were far more conservative and bailed on Larry's devel, w/perl6 still not quite ready for prime time (that I've heard, anyway -- some might disagree). The wouldn't even allow "features" in places where there were CURRENTLY errors. I.e. no one could really said to be "relying" on the bad behavior, as it produced garbage and warnings. OTOH, when they DO change something, they usually give notice about 2-3 years in advance... (2-3 releases).... They make it clear. Vs. w/Suse, it's become Caveat Emptor.
El 14/02/13 18:42, Brian K. White escribió:
You fail to understand that if you want to make a new and non backwards compatible computing environment, you should make up a new name for it instead of falsely advertizing that it is something that it is not. Android and webOS don't say "linux" anywhere in their marketing materials. They say android and webos.
It is backward compatible under the constrains I have already explained, which are the same since years and years this is nothing new.
--- Backwards compatible openSUSE means I can recompile and reinstall portions of the **open source*** from scratch, when I need a newer version that what is included the distro. I want to maintain my ability to compile and run my own kernel. I've found I consistently get better performance and hardware utilization with such. But is not ok to force people to lock-step upgrade EVERYTHING with each revision. You've even changed the idea of what versions mean. With no difference now between major and minor versioning. Most people would call that insane.
You want, I have no idea what you want, but you've failed to explain how it justifies trampling all over users lives.
Nobody is trampling over users lives, or forcing anyone to do anything, it is free software, those who dont like the current state of things or the direction it is going are invited to.
---- Sorry, ANY argument I make ... like I'd like to update perl, or I'd like to run with a vanilla kernel optimized for my system and it's HW.. is considered "irrational" by your definitions. I have bugzilla'd multiple times -- for years I pushed for nscd to run as a separate user and group than just daemon/daemon. I was told unscd was the way to go -- then later, that nscd had to run as root to support nss. I said I didn't need nss. I have dns and files for my few systems and that's fine. No choice...
- Make rational arguments and workable suggestions in the proper channels or venues (i.e bugzilla)
---- One tiny voice yelling against the storm...
- Actually DO SOMETHING instead of complaining.
I try to do what I can. Which isn't much. I'm disabled from RSI and back problems which limit time I can spend and slow down my work by 4-10x over what it used to take me to do things...and it drives me crazy. But with the changes in suse lately, I'm going backwards faster than I am going forwards... I'm not getting to do the things I want to do -- I'm having to work on fixing problems most of the time.
- Choose another linux distribution, for the needs mentioned in this thread , it has a to a source based one or a BSD.
Opensuse was fine when it was ***OPEN*** and didn't have everything linked together -- and rpms would just build if you had the prereqs installed. Now you need a special system to build, and I'll bet money when you run the tests that come with those products -- you also run those tests in an artificial, isolated, "non-real world".... That's why the quality had dropped and you having the problems you are having. The openSuSE approach over the past few years has been attempting toward increased control -- first the build & test env -- then the requirement that you NEED a non-real world system to build things on (combined with the fact that you don't even TEST building your SW with a fully installed development system. Now you are working on controlling the user's execution environment as well -- by forced version-linking. That's not robust software. That's fragile software built to operate in an artificial environment. I have all the source rpms installed for suse, but starting with 12.1, I am no longer able to build many of them as they don't build except on a suse approved environment -- how this isn't more tivoization, I don't know. Multiple times I've tried to get OBS to work over ssh.. never had luck. I was even told I could build 5.16.0 for my 12.1 system -- but when I asked for more information or how to do it, people fell silent. Now I know why -- it wouldn't have worked. Nevertheless, I can configure DNS/bind, and run my own domain (tiny)... I can configure samba as a domain server; sendmail to send my mail, squid to act as my proxy, BOTH winXP and Win7 being roaming clients that had their home directories saved on the server (mostly because I didn't trust win7 with my data)...and most recently have gotten my win7-server link upto 400MB/s R/W over samba!.... But OBS?... not that I haven't tried... but it sounds like it might not help anyway... someone else told me I could build 5.16 (perl) for my system... sounds like that's not right (and I don't mean a private build, since much of my system operation is done through scripting I've written in shell or perl -- but that means my scripts run at the system level. That suse claims users running their own system scripts is unsupported is a major shift from the past -- it's not me that is "insane"...though I could see why you would want to portray me that way. If people actually realized the way you are going opensuse will be more closed than MS -- at least there I can install my own perl and not worry about MS saying I'm on my own because of it. Sheesh! -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org