# Preaching to the Choir - Upstream vendors can harm small projects: OpenBSD dev



## jrm@ (Nov 22, 2012)

Upstream vendors can harm small projects: OpenBSD dev


----------



## Crivens (Nov 23, 2012)

Next, Samuel L. Bronkowiz presents: Upstream does not give a flying fsck. At eleven.


----------



## kpedersen (Nov 23, 2012)

All throughout the article, Marc Espie suggests that upstream developers are purely aiming at GNU and Linux... He completely forgets to mention that the software is also likely to be incompatible with all the different Linux distros anyway 

Last time I checked, Fedora SRPMs generally contain a lot of required patches. As does .deb.

I certainly agree with him that the Autotools are a complete failure.


----------



## NewGuy (Nov 23, 2012)

Indeed, there really isn't such a thing as targeting Linux as Linux isn't a single operating system/platform. Software written for Fedora often doesn't work for Ubuntu, projects targeting Ubuntu don't work on Debian, etc. Patches are often required to get software working on the various distros, either applied in download distributions or by developers working with upstream.

Developers rarely have the time and resources to test their software on the dozens (hundreds, really) different open source operating systems. I think the real problem lies not in which platform is targeted, but how the upstream devs react to patches and suggests from downstream. Do they accept suggestions and code into their project or do they tell downstream they're not interested. This varies a lot from project to project.


----------



## zeissoctopus (Dec 4, 2012)

*A topic by an OpenBSD developer Marc Espie*

Original email by Marc Espie here

Interview with Marc Espire by ITWire here


----------



## SirDice (Dec 4, 2012)

Zeissoctopus, there was already a thread covering this. Thread merged.


----------



## sossego (Dec 5, 2012)

When I'd worked on Gnome for PowerPC and SPARC64, the general attitude of the developers was "Why should we care about anything besides Linux?"


----------



## kpedersen (Dec 5, 2012)

sossego said:
			
		

> When I'd worked on Gnome for PowerPC and SPARC64, the general attitude of the developers was "Why should we care about anything besides Linux?"



This is so annoying, especially since those same linux users complain about developers not caring about anything besides Windows.

Linux is so fragmented it is kinda getting in the way of an actual open-source alternative to Windows.


----------



## Crivens (Dec 5, 2012)

kpedersen said:
			
		

> This is so annoying, especially since those same linux users complain about developers not caring about anything besides Windows.
> 
> Linux is so fragmented it is kinda getting in the way of an actual open-source alternative to Windows.



Indeed. If this was orchestrated by a certain Steve B., it could not be better. Or worse. Depending on your point of view. What I think is also behind this is that most of these developers do not know how to work portable or abstract system/cpu/... dependant parts properly. Then they declare this lack of design as a feature. "Free to hack anything" anyone?


----------



## UNIXgod (Dec 6, 2012)

Maybe the next standard could be called GNU-POSIX.... Where all changes are required to be reimplemented in the next standard. The GNU-POSIX standard will imply that all software must be GPL restrictive and any software not bearing the GPL license is a non standard UNIX.

/sarcasm


----------



## xibo (Dec 6, 2012)

UNIXgod said:
			
		

> software not bearing the GPL license is a non standard UNIX.



Who cares about that UNIX thing these days any more? The new version will abbreviate Portable Operating System Interface for *linu*X.


----------

