From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CE02138247 for ; Sat, 11 Jan 2014 01:29:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B6E80E0C60; Sat, 11 Jan 2014 01:29:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E321E0BEB for ; Sat, 11 Jan 2014 01:29:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F58D33F6FD for ; Sat, 11 Jan 2014 01:29:01 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new using ClamAV at gentoo.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.207 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.207 tagged_above=-999 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=-1.204, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([IPv6:::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [IPv6:::ffff:127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Vx2iVUCW0QSA for ; Sat, 11 Jan 2014 01:28:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from plane.gmane.org (plane.gmane.org [80.91.229.3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AAF4533F68C for ; Sat, 11 Jan 2014 01:28:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1W1nNW-0003sD-Ab for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Sat, 11 Jan 2014 02:28:46 +0100 Received: from ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net ([68.231.22.224]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 11 Jan 2014 02:28:46 +0100 Received: from 1i5t5.duncan by ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 11 Jan 2014 02:28:46 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Portage QOS Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 01:28:24 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <52ce4eab.463f700a.4b43.16bd@mx.google.com> <52ce9994.24f5980a.0660.342e@mx.google.com> <52cf09c2.463f700a.4b43.58d7@mx.google.com> <52CF0FD7.8010608@gentoo.org> <86d2jz79bq.fsf@moguhome00.in.awa.tohoku.ac.jp> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net User-Agent: Pan/0.140 (Chocolate Salty Balls; GIT 6daf184 /usr/src/portage/src/egit-src/pan2) X-Archives-Salt: 1de2c52f-2410-4017-990c-129a48f278b5 X-Archives-Hash: c0e04f4b8adbcd9b96bc7ba6b51567ca heroxbd posted on Sat, 11 Jan 2014 07:36:57 +0900 as excerpted: > Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> writes: > >> Meanwhile, you might try googling Zynot. That was one early, perhaps >> the first, Gentoo fork. >> >> I remember back in early 2004 > > Wow... What a history! I am educated. Thanks for sharing. > > I've always been interested in my distro's history. The information > scatters here and there. It'll be nice if some senior/retired developers > write up a Gentoo history on wiki.g.o :) FWIW, I did my research and ended up on gentoo after the split was basically done, tho zynot was still around at the time. As such, I don't have a lot of personal experience with it, but it was still close enough that most of the gentoo devs of the time did have personal experience. What I do know is that it was a very bitter experience for many, and most that lived thru it, like many survivors of a lot of particularly man-made tragedies, considered the experience something that they and gentoo had survived, and were /extremely/ glad it was over, but weren't much for talking about it. At a safe historic distance of a decade in the past, perhaps some might talk about it now, but I'd guess for many, it's just not worth reliving, except, $deity forbid, should there be a danger of something similar occurring again. Too many bitter recriminations. Too many previous friends lost to the split... But I was close enough time-wise to appreciate the seriousness and tragedy of the event, while not being part of it myself, so I don't have those old wounds to rip back open by talking about it. Apologies to the long-time devs still here for whom I'm doing just that, but it /is/ history now, and as the saying goes, those who don't know history are bound to repeat it, something I'm absolutely sure NOBODY involved would want, so... >From what I understand, this guy /had/ been effectively drobbins' right- hand-man for a time. He had business connections and had been instrumental in parlaying some of them into gentoo sponsorships at a time when it was much younger and needed them, and he was a good PR guy. The gentoo dev community was smaller and closer knit at the time, and many had considered this guy and the devs that ultimately left with him personal friends. That made the hurt /much/ worse. =:^( What I've always wondered is what the devs who went with him thought; how he persuaded them, /their/ side of the story. I knew /his/ side of the story from reading his essays attacking gentoo and drobbins, and I knew at least enough about the gentoo side to be convinced that the gentoo side was where I should be, but coming in shortly after as I did, I never had any contact with or read anything from any of the devs that left with him, and I obviously didn't know them previously, so their side of the story, why he convinced them to go zynot (other than the obvious, that any persuasive argument must have /some/ element of truth), I'll never know. Meanwhile, I'm /quite/ aware that my own view and recounting of the history I know is quite colored by my own position, and definitely /must/ suffer to some degree from the "victor rewriting history" phenomenon. I'm sure if I had a better view of the picture as the devs who left for zynot saw it, that "people who left" view would be rather different, and regardless of whether I agreed with it or not, it would certainly color my own view and thus recounting of the facts as I am aware of them. Worth keeping in mind... Meanwhile, that /some/ bit of truth, AFAIK, revolved around the fact that while gentoo had settled on the GPLv2 for code and similarly free general documentation licenses, drobbins was apparently asking for copyright rights, with a policy of copyright everything gentoo, which drobbins held the rights to, with the ownership rights becoming the core of the fight. There had been some talk of some sort of a gaming distro (I'm fuzzy on the details), apparently drobbins' big idea, and as a base for embedded, this guy's big idea and ultimately zynot's target for funding, etc. This guy accused drobbins of intending to do the gaming thing then take everything private. As I wasn't there and am not drobbins, I can't say for sure what drobbins ultimate idea and motives were, but as I read this guy's essays, I kept shouting at the monitor, "But if he intended to go private and deprive other contributors of their just due, why GPLv2, not MIT/BSD, which would make that so much easier?" Of course as we know from the MySQL/Sun/Oracle events, with all rights a company can still go private, using the GPL to maintain an unfair advantage over others who can't take it private because they don't have the copyrights, only the GPL version. But even so, again as the MySQL/Oracle/MariaDB events, and the Sun/Oracle/OpenOffice/LibreOffice events as well demonstrate, if that's against the wishes of an already active and developed community, that community can and will take the free version it still has rights to use and run with it! Meanwhile, from all I could see then and to the extent that I know anything of zynot to this day, that's EXACTLY what zynot tried to do, take advantage of the free-licensed gentoo work and extend it with their proprietary product. Clear as anything else I've ever seen, it was the soot-covered pot looking in the mirror and believing it sees a kettle to call black! That's enough old wounds I'm sure I've torn open for some, sorry. But knowing that history explains QUITE A BIT of gentoo's internal politics to this day, so it's VERY worth knowing about for new devs who had no idea that was in gentoo's history. Among other things, that definitely plays a part in why people are now encouraged to mark their work copyright gentoo if they have no strong feelings about it, but gentoo doesn't DEMAND it. (Another factor is as greg-kh points out, due to employment contracts a lot of gentoo devs wouldn't be able to contribute and would have to resign, were a firm copyright rights assignment policy established. It plays and even *STRONGER* role in gentoo's governing structure, both because drobbins took quite some care and personal legal expense to ensure a separate gentoo foundation with the assets, but *NOT* technical control, and in the very loose government structure, with little central control and individual devs having lots of rights that are rather difficult to strip, except by what ultimately amounts to overwhelming (but not necessarily unanimous) agreement (which does and has occurred when necessary, as some former devs who still follow this list can surely attest), should a case be appealed all the way thru council, etc. And even tho there has been enough turnover that I don't believe the original devs have anything like enough power to directly maintain those rules, the original themes were strong enough to have set in motion a VERY strong culture of little central power and lots of individual dev independence, such that succeeding generations have continued to inherit that from their mentors and other devs that came before them. Those original devs tended to attract others of like mind, and train them in the way, and that generation in turn did the same, such that while few newer devs really understand the history behind it, that comparatively weak central power and strong individual dev rights continue to this day. And of course that same theme is playing in this thread. Gentoo culture has an extremely strong emphasis on individual rights, including the right to choose one's own distribution, such that most gentoo devs (and users) will find the very idea of somehow deliberately closing off avenues of choice, restricting distro choice and the ability of users to leave if they feel so inclined, EXTREMELY repulsive. Yes, to some extent the majority of the FLOSS community has a similar culture, but self- evidently the typical dev in a typical corporate-sponsored distro isn't as likely to have the extreme, gut-level revulsion to centralized or corporate control of the distro, or to dev and user choice, that your typical gentooer dev is likely to have. And actually, I'm glad this discussion has come up, since writing about it has given me new insights into things as well. I obviously had all the factoids and history available before, but this has forced me to realize connections that I hadn't previously considered. Wow! I had thought that was just the way gentoo's culture was. Now I understand a bit more about how its history shapes that, and /why/ gentoo's culture is the way it is. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman