1. FreeBSD is like a quarter century old. How many times have a problem like this arisen? Gates -of any kind, don't come for free (not even in free... bsd) so maybe the cost/benefit of current situation is still positive. Now they discovered a lousy developer? They retire his "commit bit" a life just goes on. On the other side of the equation, I don't think the core team gives that "commit bit" to the first passer-by. Remember: "almost" is not anything like "there". 2. If you don't like it, and still pre
> I don't think the core team gives that "commit bit" to the first passer-by
No, that would be too fair -- it's actually some elitist and corrupt mechanism through which incompetents get their commit bits and push their pet peeves and broken code.
I still remember like 15 years ago when some little cunt decides to disable sysvipc, breaking a lot of programs. Just because he didn't like it. That was fortunately reverted soon afterwards.
Or when another genius (which was kicked out soon afterwards and created
Quite "cheaper" to counter-act than prevent, as you had to resort to something happening 15 years ago that was "reverted soon afterwards" and, if you don't like how things go on FreeBSD and you think you can do it better, you always can fork and demonstrate it.
Terrible problem (Score:1)
1. FreeBSD is like a quarter century old. How many times have a problem like this arisen? Gates -of any kind, don't come for free (not even in free... bsd) so maybe the cost/benefit of current situation is still positive. Now they discovered a lousy developer? They retire his "commit bit" a life just goes on. On the other side of the equation, I don't think the core team gives that "commit bit" to the first passer-by. Remember: "almost" is not anything like "there".
2. If you don't like it, and still pre
Re: (Score:1)
> I don't think the core team gives that "commit bit" to the first passer-by
No, that would be too fair -- it's actually some elitist and corrupt mechanism through which incompetents get their commit bits and push their pet peeves and broken code.
I still remember like 15 years ago when some little cunt decides to disable sysvipc, breaking a lot of programs. Just because he didn't like it. That was fortunately reverted soon afterwards.
Or when another genius (which was kicked out soon afterwards and created
Re: (Score:2)
So exactly my point.
Quite "cheaper" to counter-act than prevent, as you had to resort to something happening 15 years ago that was "reverted soon afterwards" and, if you don't like how things go on FreeBSD and you think you can do it better, you always can fork and demonstrate it.
Re:Terrible problem (Score:1)
Well, the "cat" kludge is still there, and it also made its way into MacOS.
> if you don't like how things go on FreeBSD
Is there anybody who likes it? Do you like it?