Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 17th Feb 2009 17:34 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 349571
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Arch Pro Bullet List
by ralsina on Tue 17th Feb 2009 23:18
in reply to "RE[2]: Arch Pro Bullet List"
RE[4]: Arch Pro Bullet List
by sbergman27 on Tue 17th Feb 2009 23:37
in reply to "RE[3]: Arch Pro Bullet List"
I think of downstream patches like when a studio cuts the movie instead of the director.
I think of patching by downstream providers as representing a cooperative effort. The upstream providers are quite rightly concerned about the maintainability of the code. The downstream providers are quite rightly concerned about customer satisfaction.
The patches will either be integrated into the next upstream release, be improved and integrated into the upstream release, or turn out to be a mistake and get discarded, entirely.
Your "movie analogy" just doesn't click with me. Not at all. It's a different thing.







Member since:
2006-01-01
Well I've rarely had issues with unpatched software straight from the software developers themselves. In comparison I've had many more problems with the patched versions.
Lets take the X patches that recently made quite a stir.
Originated from Fedora, and the Ubuntu packages also have them.
Results... oh look at that! corrupted system tray icons.
Lets compare to the Arch/Mostly Unpatched packages... yep thats right. It works just fine.
Just one example of thousands of crappy patches that get applied every release and cause many more problems then they solve. Let the project developers do what they do best, fix the problems with their project. Thats my opinion anyways.