Slashdot Mirror
How Open Source Projects Survive Poisonous People
CoolVibe writes "Two Subversion developers talk at Google about how to keep pests and malcontents out of your open source projects. From the abstract: 'Every open source project runs into people who are selfish, uncooperative, and disrespectful. These people can silently poison the atmosphere of a happy developer community. Come learn how to identify these people and peacefully de-fuse them before they derail your project. Told through a series of (often amusing) real-life anecdotes and experiences.'"
In this story, one of the links is apparent that it's to a video, since the URL is a video.google... link.
Oh, by the way, I *think* I'm one of the poisonous people they're referring to.
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
Okay, I think I've built up enough upmods to post to this story again.
/exact/ same issues with WinNT, Win2k, WinXP and a handful of Linux distros.
:-P )
Each to their own, but it was GRUB that failed, not Ubuntu. I do understand that Ubuntu installed GRUB, but GRUB isn't Ubuntu.
Do you understand the thirty times I explained that the Grub failure is not what bothers me, but the software design surrounding it? I understand if Grub fails. I do not understand if the forums expect me to use troubleshooting tools that were never recommended to have ready before beginning the install. I do not understand the extreme negative consequences are not warned of, for Grub. I do not understand HIGHLY RECOMMENDING the wiping of the MBR when you can install on a separate drive with far less risk.
Objectively: I've had the
Once the MS boot loader is dead
Not objective. The difference is that Ubuntu is desperate for a user base, Windows is not. Sad, but true.
The point is, the boot loader has to be on the booting drive (primary master, normally). So if you left it in, in order for the new OS to be an option on boot (which most people installing would automatically want), it has to edit the MBR on the primary disc.
And what happens if you leave it out? It finds a different drive to boot from. And it can use the MBR on that drive. I could have set the Linux OS to load whenever the tertiary hard drive is booted from.
1) Turn on computer.
2) Hit F8.
3) Select tertiary hard drive.
4) Avoid losing week of computer usage and driving 200 miles to fix problem when Grub fails.
Or I could have it set so that selecting a CD drive loads the Linux OS.
Remember, Grub does not load until after I tell the computer which drive to boot from. How did I get back into the install screen, again?
The lessons you should have learnt from your experience is that a) leaving your only other bootable harddrive in when testing a new OS is a Bad ThingTM and that b) always having a bootable disc (CD, floppy, USB, whatever) available when messing with the part that makes your computer works is a Good ThingTM.
No, the lesson I got from this is:
"The Ubuntu website, if it were really intending to be an OS for all, utterly failed in basic design by not HIGHLY RECOMMENDING that you have a LiveCD or your original OS install CD ready when you try to install. If it can't even get that part right, it's hopeless."
And again -- I do accept personal responsibility for being stupid enough to believe the crap on the Ubuntu site. But what does that mean, exactly? It means responsible people should know better than to do what the Ubuntu website says.
I'm not trying to preach to you, or call you an idiot;
I wish the same were true in reverse. (Sorry, you set yourself up for that one
I've seen you post this thread around a few times, though, and I get the impression you're overly-passionate about the issue and need to realise that these things happen.
Again, my over-passion is due to my revulsion at poor design, and it wasn't the bad event that bothers me, but failure of the design to adequately mitigate it.
If your goal, however, is to promote caution and improved warnings for people trying out Linux for the first time, then I commend you.
Improved warnings, yes. Improved caution, no. Remember, I had boatloads of caution. Why do you think I set aside a large block of time for the install in case something went wrong? Why did I buy a new HD for it? Why did I research user-friendliness of distros? Why did I do EVERYTHING that was HIGHLY RECOMMENDED and nothing that wasn't?
Because I was cautious. That and $5 will get you a cup of coffee, but it won't do **** if you're not already an Ubuntu expert who knows to do all the stuff that the download site doesn't mention.
But ask yourself: is this really a matter of "oops, f
Apology to Ubuntu forum.