Changing CentOS in mid-stream

Posted Dec 18, 2020 15:40 UTC (Fri) by farnz (subscriber, #17727)
In reply to: Changing CentOS in mid-stream by farnz
Parent article: Changing CentOS in mid-stream

And, as an aside while you're thinking about where stretching this goes, my preferred form for modification of code is downloaded to the filesystem of a fast machine with a decent 32" monitor attached and an editor set up to my preferences. I use that for every modification I make, including the ones I have that are in the upstream Linux kernel.

A VCS is entirely optional for modifying code, given a decent editor with good undo facilities and auto-commenting of lines. It makes it much, much easier to share my modifications with people, and to track what is the code I got from upstream versus what I've modified, but I do not use the VCS as part of actually modifying the code. In contrast, I do use the fast computer, the editor, and the monitor as part of actually modifying code - I've never made a kernel modification without a monitor and an editor of my choice.

Changing CentOS in mid-stream

Posted Dec 18, 2020 17:38 UTC (Fri) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link] (1 responses)

The preferences of the distributor are more germane to the point, particularly where the distributor seeks to deny the same to others.

If monitors were specific to software source code, and you needed a very specific monitor unique to a code-base in order to modify it, and it was typical in software for proprietary vendors of code-base to sell such monitors along with source-code; and if someone created a copyleft licence that required all the tools to be passed along to those the redistributed the code to; then yes... maybe you could require people to supply monitors.

However, in this world, the hardware is usually general, and the general hardware is usually not supplied. So, that's a super-hypothetical world.

The GPLv3 does require the tools - other than general-purpose - to be supplied as part of the source code.

Changing CentOS in mid-stream

Posted Dec 18, 2020 17:57 UTC (Fri) by farnz (subscriber, #17727) [Link]

But the VCS is also a general purpose tool, like a monitor, and when it comes to modifying code (e.g. to add support for a new printer type), I have no interest in what's in the VCS, whereas I do have a deep interest in having decent tools for actually making my changes. Indeed, if you give me the choice between my current monitor and a distribution tarball of the code, or a monitor half the area (a 22" or so) and full VCS history for a project I want to modify, I'll take the tarball and my current monitor every single time.

While I don't work at Red Hat, I suspect the same is true of their engineers too - full VCS history is nice, but good tools are far more important if you're modifying the code.