*&^&*^**^&*^!!

On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 03:49:47PM +0100, Oliver Grawert wrote:
> since all my efforts the last three years are apparently seen
> as conspirative ways to only push ubuntu marketing goals

????!

> i see no other way than to step out of ltsp development

Oliver, stop that nonsense pls!!

Forgive me please, I never wanted to hurt you.  Forgive me.


On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 08:26:14PM +0530, CyberOrg wrote:
> testimony to that is I just had to change a couple of lines of
> code there to get it working on openSUSE, as you can see from
> the patches I've submitted.  You have done a lot of great work
> so far, don't let small thing dishearten you :)

It's not a small thing, but not anything to dishearten either.


On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 04:38:58PM +0100, Oliver Grawert wrote:
> > You have done a lot of great work so far, don't let small
> > thing dishearten you :)
> if it would be such a small thing i wouldnt sit here that
> frustrated now ...

If I knew... sorry to have written that on wrong day.

I've really admired at your handling of my IRC nitpicks when 
I frequented the channel (not getting to chat these days...
hope to get back to all the channels and fine people again)
and asked questions that were sometimes hard to figure out
for me and usually it was you who answered.

If I'd want to say that "those jerks killed off ltsp"
BELIEVE I'D DO JUST THAT.

If I say "thank you" and propose to develop the next level of
suitability for the many different situations we have out there
TOGETHER, then I *do* recognize LTSP upstream and effort done.

> apparently there is a distro (alt linux) who forked out code
> two years ago

A year ago, but correct, I can only tell it's currently a fork
and that hurts me personally.

> and didnt contribute a single line back upstream

I seem to have posted the link to source packages so that at
least it's not hidden anywhere; and definitely to ISO images,
which contain packages, which are under GPL, thus the source
is archived for them.

We would probably just do extra interference when dust settled
here and I had some time to do the merging for my colleague who
actually does the job here -- you set out to "upstreamize" LTSP5
and there might be a log record somewhere that I was very glad
with that, either.

I'll re-post as a separate message, and still hope to merge 
things up after reviewing the changes to common scripts (asked
that these be done in as non-specific way as possible a few
months ago).

> i worked nearly a year on getting the requirements for ltsp
> down to 32M with the (techincal, not marketing) constraints i'm
> bound to with ubuntu, to be told that they use their for of our
> code with 16M ?

I seem to have told -- either here or on IRC -- that I considered
squashfs weird solution, or a solution for a problem unknown to me.
Probably just missed on that.

> people seem to see me as a blocker and to accuse me

Who does that??

> (which is not true especially the last six moths where i spend
> my about 10-12h/day in #ltsp on my own dime aside the ubuntu or
> canonical work i do (yes there is a difference between the
> two))

Probably everyone who frequents #ltsp and other channels knows
the rareness of people like you.

> i started ltsp development because it was fun and i liked it,
> totally imndependently from any canonical decision. much of
> todays code was written by me, ltsp5 is bigger than canonical
> for me, it became my heart blood and soul. its not the first
> time it comes up that people are not able to tell my job from
> my developer role in ltsp (or that people miss to see that my
> ubuntu decisions are technical not marketing based)

Hey, it is written in big bold letters all over you.
No-one doing things for money only would help that way.

> moving upstream to complete cross distro team maintenance seems
> to not have helped that either

It helps a lot in fact.

> hoping that will make altlinux or others with teh same attitude
> commit some code back at least.

I hope you re-read Jim's message and reconsider.

Re attitude, I understand you quite good (I think) since I don't
work for bare money too, and have had my share of sleepless
nights and free advice just for the love of the art.

Those 16M weren't "to be less than" either, they were to cover
Pentium/16M systems still alive and kicking throughout schools
(AFAIK ~60% of current Russian pilot school PCs got <128M RAM).

And I never wanted to tell anyone that *you* are the problem.
I have plethora of problems with Ubuntu, Mark, ALT, Novodvorsky,
but then again we're people and we see things differently.

It's mostly the problem with me.

Sorry.

-- 
 ---- WBR, Michael Shigorin <mike-u2l5PoMzF/[email protected]>
  ------ Linux.Kiev http://www.linux.kiev.ua/

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/

_____________________________________________________________________
Ltsp-developer mailing list.   To un-subscribe, or change prefs, goto:
      https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltsp-developer
For additional LTSP help,   try #ltsp channel on irc.freenode.net

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFH4+EvbsPDprYMm3IRAt9EAKDdIkzT41F7w4sfUoS5rCtA+cTPKACgwfBY
F4mllP4WFdKLTBjr0uF+t1k=
=VHR0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----