When people can't find fault in the technical argument, they start attacking other things like.
> Oh! He is so rude, He insults so much.
If you have a better argument to counter his logic, please post that, it would be more useful for everyone involved.
Posting pretty useless comments here is pretty lame.
Wait, so according to you it's OK to be as rude as you wish, as long as you are technically correct?
I think most people couldn't care less who's right or wrong in this discussion. They are simply reacting to the discourse.
Personally, I'm far from convinced that there even is an objective right or wrong in this question. It's probably just a matter of taste and/or perspective.
I find Linus behavior rude because in discussions like this he seems to have little to no understanding of other perspectives than his own.
Either that or he is deliberately provoking this other fellow to get him off his high horses.
In either case, it's not exactly accepted public discourse.
He has said himself that he needs to do this to drive his point across, and given the medium and audience I can agree that the political challenge of running the project must be huge.
But surely there must be a more diplomatic way to the same end?
> Wait, so according to you it's OK to be as rude as you wish, as long as you are technically correct?
I never said that. My argument is that people/culture are different. What is considered offensive/rude in some culture is considered normal in other cultures.
> Personally, I'm far from convinced that there even is an objective right or wrong in this question. It's probably just a matter of taste and/or perspective.
This is not always true. Sometimes there is only one correct/pragmatic way of doing something. And if someone asserts that it's nothing wrong.
> I find Linus behavior rude because in discussions like this he seems to have little to no understanding of other perspectives than his own.
You can't say this is the case always. I have read a lot of the discussions like these. A lot of times, he writes a pragmatic and valid explanation of his dislike about a certain topic.
> In either case, it's not exactly accepted public discourse.
Again, you are assuming all cultures and societies are alike, they are not. There is a vast wide world with different thinking and a culture other than the Silicon Valley bubble. It's time people stop generalizing everything under the sun.
Let's stop policing speech, alright? You can use as many words as you want to express your views. I personally would not use the same words he might use, but let's not be hypocrites and say that none of us have written an angry or frustrated response to something that we think is stupid and just plain wrong.
You can take as many steps as you want to get to the mailbox too. And you'll be taking more steps if you detour to go sniff dog shit. Going in a straight line solves two problems - it's faster and it smells better.
Agree with your points about the suit and Licensing.
> Linux only took off thanks to SGI, IBM, HP, Cray seeing value reducing costs from their own in-house systems to something else.
This seems unfair, Linux took off because it constantly kept getting improved and has more and more developers contributing to it. It didn't only take off because it was cheap, but it kept on improving. Also, the Elitist mindsets of some BSD devs and community go back to harm it. Try contributing to OpenBSD or FreeBSD and compare it with how approachable and relatively easy it is to contribute to Linux is.
Also, it's the fault of BSD's to not adopt or change to a better License at getting contributions back to its mainstream.
I also have major objections to calling anything more secure. No software is secure, each one of them has bugs. Some are discovered because more and more people use it. It's not like BSDs never had any CVEs ever.
It is not unfair, because the majority of "developers contributing to it" are on those company payrolls, 8h a day during a full week.
It would be just another BSD or Minix if it would be only university students and weekend coders working on it, and we would all keep using Solaris, Aix, HP-UX, Tru64, Ultrix....
As for security issues, it helps that Linus is against disclosing security bugs as such.
> It is not unfair, because the majority of "developers contributing to it" are on those company payrolls, 8h a day during a full week.
Why don't the devs at those company contribute to BSD then? Care to reflect on this?
How much code do you think they got back from Sony, Apple, companies selling routers with BSD on them?
Even Google prefers to build their own OS from scratch with MIT license (Fuchsia) than keep on using Linux for that effort. They already reduced GPL use to the bare minimum on Android by removing gcc.
Then there was the whole suit which made most companies loose interest to be involved with BSD.
"o what both the 2-clause BSD license and the MIT license have in common are:
Permits use
Permits redistribution
Permits redistribution with modification
Provision to retain the copyright notice and warranty disclaimer
In addition the MIT license also explicitly allows:
merging
publishing
sublicensing
selling
However, all these freedoms are implied by the BSD license, because all these activities can be considered "use" and/or "redistribution" of the software.
The practical differences between the 2-clause BSD license and the MIT license are marginal. Which one to pick is mostly up to personal taste. Especially considering that both licenses are considered compatible, so you can take code under one license and use it in a project under the other, as long as you keep the license text around."
What are you talking about? BSD sees plenty of use, for its support of zfs, dtrace, and jails alone.
Unless you're heavily invested in the Linux kernel and Linux-only tech, I'd advise to keep your software running on the BSDs as well as Linux to avoid monocultures in your own best interest. The strength of F/OSS is in giving you choice, eg. by providing two (or more) interchangeable, excellent O/S's and compiler suites.
I am talking about comparable usage. Do not get me wrong. And it's best for everyone if BSD succeeds because then we have a choice. My pet peeve is that it is incredibly difficult to contribute to BSDs (say OpenBSD) compared to Linux. F/OSS project runs on community contributions and thrives solely on basis of that. I hope they open the process up more so that more and more users contribute to it.
Also, essentials things like graphics drivers etc, work properly so that the devs like us start using it as a daily driver and contribute to it's usage.
This is sad. Flask is a very nice microframework that does not have any of these scalability limitations for which your employer asked you to switch to Django.
I have used both Flask and Django for a long time, so I think I could contribute a couple of points in this regard.
- Django with a very good documentation and batteries included helps to build a lot of functionality in less time without having to look anywhere else. In the same time, flask being a microframework, you need to look for the batteries yourself and it takes experience and knowledge to know which components to use and which to avoid.
- None of these two frameworks will magically fix the scaling issues or are free to scaling issues.When you hit issues with scaling, you need to find the bottleneck and fix it. There is no other magic bullet here. I would suggest do not be religious about things and try both of them without any bias in your personal projects and then evaluate. Do not form an opinion without knowing something yourself.
This is a false statement that Django is unsuitable for large projects. I have been working on a fairly large Django Project for 5 years now and it has been a pleasure using Django to build good and stable features that actually scale.
> The nature of Django encourages tight coupling between unrelated parts of the system - Models intertwine database operations and business logic, ModelViews intertwine db operations, business logic and the interface layer.
It totally depends how your architect your application and how you write code.
Any framework you choose, you need to write good code, keep an eye on db operations, enable caching where it is required and you will survive the scale just fine. All the arguments are exactly same in the favor of slack.
Do not spread the FUD that using a framework can magically make your application scale. I have seen very bad and very good code in both Django and flask. If you want your application to scale, you need to carefully work on it there is no silver bullet.
Okay. That's almost crazy. In my almost 3 years of maintaining our app that was originally written in Eclipse, we never had to face any single issues like this. There were some minor issues but never like this. It makes me wonder if the your project structure or the way project is written is crappy.
Well, the rule of thumb is that if you need stability, never upgrade on the first day of release but rather wait for 1 week or two. I personally have faced and upgraded my apps through many of these upgrades and there was rarely an earth-shattering issue that I was not able to solve. YMMV.
Well, yes, it always happens to someone - I mean, every upgrade will break some stuff for some devs. After all, the userbase of Android Studio is quite sizeable.
What I find hard to believe is that these problems would hit the same bunch of people every time, and on the top of it, affecting every project they work on. Come on.
And this is what dheera claimed ("almost every release of Android Studio has succeeded in breaking every single Android app"). If it's really so extreme, I'd say that he - or she - is not unlikely to be alone, or close to that.
The crazy part is, while I have the same issues with every release of Android Studio – the same project in IDEA works just fine, without any trouble, ever.
In fact, JetBrains quality and reliability has been much higher than the piece of shit IDE Google has been producing.
Vimeo is most suitable competition IMO.