Re: Devuan

Quoting Ivan Sergio Borgonovo ([email protected]):

> That's because there are enough people that think lighttp is worth to be 
> maintained.

And that is an astonishingly _small_ number of people -- which is the
general rule for *ix software.  The notion people, perhaps you, keep
trying to import from the proprietary software world -- that large
userbases or large numbers of allegedly-but-probably-not-really involved
maintainers makes it a safer or better choice -- is delusional.  And,
frankly, I'm astonished to hear this bullshit debating point seriously
asserted -- or perhaps implied -- in 2016.  Surely decades of open
source have broken _that_ PR canard.

If you think otherwise, then we will simply agree to disagree, and end
this discussion cordially.

> Lighttp doesn't live in vacuum, it has dependencies and an 
> environment in which it can work.

And each of those very often achieves whatever excellence it can reach
based on the care of an astonishingly small number of people, too.

If you had a point, it is entirely unclear to this observer (though that
could be the caffeine-deficiency speaking).


> Have you been paid to chose and install lighttpd on SVLUG website?
> The environment where picking up lighttpd vs. nginx can pay you a living 
> is the kind of environment where managing small simple things adds up 
> enough fast to make them complicated ;)

I'm not proud.  I'll gladly work with Big Dumb Software when someone
with a chequebook pays me to.  (Golden Rule:  He/she who has the gold,
makes the rules.)  But when I'm serious about something working well,
and _I'm_ in charge, I opt for best of breed, instead.

Because I can.

Again, if you had a point other than 'Working with questionable software
can be remunerative', it eludes me.

> Behind the simple thing you chose there is an "economy" that keeps them 
> alive that you are "abstracting" away, taking it for granted.
> You wouldn't know the difference between lighttpd and apache if you 
> didn't have the chance to make it relevant in some environment.

Again, I'm unclear on what your point is, beyond the obvious point that
all software is maintained (if at all) by someone, somewhere.

> Is there anyone living on just maintaining a *simple* piece of software?
> No, generally they make a living on services (or blackmailing users <g>).

This seems offhand completely unresponsive to anything I said upthread.
Apologies if I'm missing something.

> Maintaining well integrated alternatives of a software has a cost.

What _doesn't_ have a cost?

I don't recall claiming that anything on the planet is effortless.
Also, there is death and taxes.


> You can wait Debian (or someone else) find a way to get systemd and 
> whatever alternative init makes sense, you can fork Debian.

Why?  There are already several packaged inits equally available, and to
my knowledge they all work justs fine.

You frankly seem to be speaking to someone else, as you're not
addressing, to the best of my understanding, anything I said.  (It's OK
with me if you do that, but it's perhaps a bit confusing.)

> Forking Debian for just one package doesn't add enough value to switch 
> distribution.

You're aware that I haven't forked Debian, right?  ;->

All the rest that followed this point is, sorry, way too abstract and of
unclear real-world relevance for this easily confused system administrator.

 
[mej, Vermillion, and Mezzanine:]

> But where the added value was?

Um, a stunningly well maintained continuation of the entire RH-VALE
distribution that was IMO better than anything available in the way of
RPM-based distributions of the day, in the days when RHL was being axed
and before CentOS took its place?  The work of _one_ guy?

I honestly don't understand why the point would be unclear.  Perhaps it's
clearer to other readers.

> What were the expectations at that time?

Sex, good food, booze, dancing, loud music.

> How did they earn their money?

How did _mej_ earn money?  Feel free to ask him.  I'm not his butler.