Mark H Weaver writes: > Hi Ludovic, > > ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > >> Mark H Weaver skribis: >> >>> The end result is that the wishes of the x86_64-using majority are the >>> only ones that seem to matter in this community, and other users are >>> frequently left in a bad spot. This makes it increasingly unlikely that >>> we'll ever gain a significant number of non-x86_64 users. >> >> This kind of rant is really unhelpful. You’re shouting at someone who >> *is* doing the work of keeping things running. > > I wasn't actually shouting, but in retrospect I can see how it came off > that way. I apologize for any hurt feelings that I caused. > > This is not Marius' fault, and I didn't intend to target him > specifically. I'm grateful for the large amount of important work that > he does on Guix. > > However, I do feel frustrated by the fact that it's considered > acceptable in this community to leave non-x86_64 users with broken > systems in the name of "moving things forward" for x86_64 users. > > Portability is important to the long-term health of the free software > movement. Especially given that fact that Intel has long ago stopped > producing processors that can be used without large amounts of nonfree > software (including the Intel Management Engine), I think we should work > to ensure that Guix works well for users of non-x86_64 systems. > > The origin of this problem is not in the Guix project. Ultimately, it's > due to the fact that x86_64 has far too much market share among > GNU/Linux developers, and therefore the upstream projects upon which > Guix depends are not being sufficiently tested on other platforms. > > However, there is one aspect of Guix that is greatly exacerbating this > problem: our impatience to always have the latest software, even if it > breaks other systems, is a serious problem in my view. > > It means that if I want to ensure that Guix works well for i686 or armhf > users, then I would need to start trying to use Guix on those systems > for real work, which at the present time would entail almost > single-handedly fixing all of the portability bugs in all of the > software that I use, at the full pace of upstream development. I would > need to keep this up for long enough to make Guix appear to be a safe > choice for i686 or armhf users, so that some of them might help work on > these portability issues in the future. > > Another problem is that Guile 2.2's compiler has become so heavy that > it's nearly unbearable to use on slower hardware. Simply running "make" > in my Guix git checkout after updating on my mips-based Yeeloong is so > slow that I'm in the habit of letting it run overnight. > > So again, and I'm saying this calmly but with great concern: given the > current priorities of the project, I could not recommend Guix to users > of non-x86_64 architectures, and I don't see how we can fix that without > attracting more developers who use those architectures. However, I > don't see how we could attract those developers if we continue to > prioritize "moving forward" at full speed for x86_64 users, even when it > breaks other systems. > >> Generalizations about “this community” obviously make no sense. You are >> a part of “this community” so it cares just as much as you do. > > By that reasoning, since I'm part of the community of humans on planet > Earth, the community of humans on planet Earth therefore cares as much > about free software as I do. > > When I suggest that the community would not take certain suggestions > seriously, e.g. the suggestion to block upgrades or merges that would > break non-x86_64 systems, that statement has some meaning. I means that > I expect that most people here would disagree, and that the maintainers > would rule in favor of "moving forward" at full speed, and that it will > be the responsibility of the tiny number of non-x86_64 Guix users to fix > portability bugs as quickly as needed so that the x86_64-using majority > need not suffer any delays. The problem is, we would need a *lot* more > non-x86_64 developers in our community to make that work, and we cannot > attract those developers given the current policies. > >> Please let’s work in a friendly manner towards finding solutions to the >> problems. > > I'm open to suggestions. Do you see any solution to the problem of how > to attract more non-x86_64 users, given our current policies? > > Thanks, > Mark I am interested in helping with non-x86_64 issues. Particularly, helping with i686-related changes should be just a change in workflow, but I'm interested in obtaining freedom-respecting non-x86 hardware (or at least using a virtual machine as close as possible to real hardware configurations). Any recommendation or links for where I can get a Yeeloong laptop or what freedom-respecting armhf computers are available?