Quoting Steve Litt (slitt@???):

> Deeeuuuuude, that's not what you're saying over on SVLUG. I quote:
>
> * Far as I can tell, Devuan was a operatic overreaction, and by no means
> the most efficient way to deal with the problem.
>
> * "Nor did it merit a fork, IMO."
>
> * "The whole forking thing seemed like gratuitous drama, really. Just
> my opinion."

This doesn't contradict what I said, in any way -- and, for some reason,
you are choosing not to quote the bits where I _specifically said_ on
the SVLUG list that I think Devuan's work is valuable and that I
appreciate it (which I also said in my Web page).

Moreover, Jaromir has known me as a fan of Devuan for a lot longer than
you've been in contact with me.

I would accordingly appreciate your prompt and full public apology.


> You'd be amazed at the number of people who mock Devuan, who are angry
> at Devuan, who say bad things about Devuan.

This drama has nothing to do with me.


> You've said a number of times that forking isn't necessary because you
> can do your Debian package manager-foo.

That is not what I said.


> In fact, the outcome of Ian Jackson's GR enforces their right to such
> sabotage.

That is not an accurate representation of the GR outcome, which I
already wasted time explaining to you. (As a reminder, I have no
connection to the Debian Project. I am just a system administrator who
uses some of its stuff, and is sometimes obliged to take measures to
reverse some of its policies and practices.)


> Although all forks ruffle feathers a little bit....

{shrug} No concern of mine.

I've been explaining to people the essential role of forking in open
source since at least that 1999 essay that Slashdot picked up.
http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Licensing_and_Law/forking.html