28 June 2019

The stupid chit-chat around and how to fix it (for people that prefer reality than some herp-derp) - Volume 2

Yeah, it never stops, here the first part.

1. IBM will fuck up Redhat because IBM destroys everything it touches, IBM is not good to open source

Instead of farting with your mouth (or fingers) try researching about this topic a little more. IBM is one of the major contributors to the open source world, not only to kernel but there's a lot, I mean, A LOT of things IBM contributed, with open source. Research linux kernel just for start, even so, IBM also sponsors some open source things, iSCSI is just one of the examples

2. Why you use the "feature X" if no one uses?

Did you tried yourself or you just "use because everyone uses"? Instead of being stupid and answering a question with another question, did you tried to understand the problem first? It's a well reported problem? It's something like "I want to disable the spectre mitigation to have performance"? Oh.. no? Then why are you doing that? Because you only uses what everyone uses without testing yourself to see if fits to your scenario?
Let's get an example: A decent linux distribution will not care what filesystem you use if it's well supported by the linux kernel and will permit you to boot on that. If reiserfs is supported (to date, I'm not sure about that), a DECENT linux distribution should boot this without any problem. If I want to use a mix of LVM+JFS+REISERFS+WHATEVERFS, it should boot if the kernel have support, unless you use a fucking messed up distro that the packagers doesn't know what they're doing and/or "you should use what everyone uses" (I still don't know who is this everyone dude". Oh the distro doesn't support install with this filesystem? Cool, what a piece of shit distro are you using? Sooo the developers of your big ass distro have more knowledge than the kernel developers itself to know what can be stable and what cannot.

3. Rolling releases are unstable, point releases are way better.

Let's get one point here, yes, there's a chance of having a problem. But who the fuck knows what software is stable or not? The developer of this software, right? And with what authority or knowledge the packager of your distro know exactly when this package is stable enough to backport patches to an ancient package? Oh he just decided and tested as fuck? Are we talking about some sort of LTS package, why? It's there a major bump on everything like... QT4 to QT5? No? Then your fucking point release isn't better, is just a decision that the packager maded for you. And to be honest, 90% of the problems I had with loss of data and stuff crashing beyond repair was, guess what, with the "so stable point release distributions".
Now in fact, there IS a reason for some distributions like redhat/centOS and SLES being in that way: Some 3rd party software wants specific version of software to be well supported, and these are the ones to blame, they could even made their binaries static or whatever other thousand of ways to make everything works better, but since this doesn't happens, redhat/centos/sles have to stick into that.

4. This feature isn't implemented in the distribution because it's unstable.

Isn't implemented because the packagers didn't made it into the distribution, stop being this jackass. Tell the truth.

5. Systemd

I know, it's bad, do bad things, create own issues, it's like a virus that do all the shit, have a shitty QA, a god-level shitty Issue tracker, binary logs that can get corrupt with a blink of an eye, and an infinite list of awful bugs that will never be fixed because some developers have a crown in his ass. But if you want to argue why you doesn't like systemd, at least get your shit together. Don't go to reddit say "I don't like binary logs, because it's binary" or people will laugh at you and it's your fault.