Let's do this here, and leave other people's threads intact.

Your efforts are your own, and mine are my own. I do not ever publicly question any of your work or contradict anything you say or do. Please afford me the same latitude.

SARPi does not use the mainline kernel source. It uses the Raspberry Pi Linux source and _defconfig that is optimised for the devices on which it runs. I've come to realise that this is a prudent choice, even though it's not in-line with the Linux purist mentality, as the creators of the hardware should know best (or at least one assumes that they should). Right?

I perpetually support and encourage users to install and run official Slackware software over my own. I do not purposely try to supplant or undermine any of your work or efforts in any way. I just let you get on with it. I respectfully request that you offer me the same latitude.

While declaring that you have concerns when considering reports about Kernels not undergoing thorough testing before deployment, which kernels are you referring to? If they are SARPi kernels then I need to see these reports in order to address them. Please forward any reports to me, to my usual email, so that I may consider and address them accordingly. I've not personally received any SARPi kernel complaints for quite a long time (i.e. years).

I've added one line in bold text near the top of the homepage on the SARPi website: "NB: The SARPi Project supports Slackware but is not officially supported by Slackware. For all officially supported Slackware software please check out arm.slackware.com." That's all for now. I do not welcome being told how I should run my own community project or what it must contain to be acceptable by other people's standards. Unless it is fundamentally working against Slackware, which is isn't, and never has been, or will be.

While I try to keep an open mind on all things Linux community related, I care little about the state of the SARPi Project in the grand scheme of things, as it's quite accurate, fit for purpose, working as intended, and mostly for my own benefit and pleasure. If there's anything about the website's information or software that is not to people's liking, that's unfortunate. But they could always trying asking nicely for me to change/add/delete something instead of mounting an attack on its veracity or integrity. It's not the done thing or best way these days. People might do themselves proud to remember and consider these things. Open mind or not, as the case may be.

I look forward to receiving your reports. Thank you for your time.

I suspect this might be the underlying issue. In another thread, concerns were raised about the RPi5 kernels, and there was an acknowledgment of a less thorough testing process. Having dedicated 22 years to this project, and 4 hours today finalising the 6.6 update, it's disheartening to witness the integrity of its name compromised in my view, against the standards I hold myself and the project to.


Regardless, I want to express appreciation for all you've done in the past. Thank you.
I guess I just take it more seriously than you. I don't mean any offence, so I apologise if that's how it was taken - certainly none intended.

Take care
s.

I remember some of our discussions about how long you have been dedicated to the Slackware ARM project and that's certainly commendable. Perhaps we can leave that as it is and agree unreservedly. I'm only interested in any errors and/or faults with the SARPi Project that are my responsibility. I'll seriously give them due consideration, whatever they are.

I wrote "I care little about the state of the SARPi Project in the grand scheme of things, as it's quite accurate, fit for purpose, working as intended, and mostly for my own benefit and pleasure." meaning there isn't a problem with it so I'm quite unconcerned. I did not write what you are alluding to. However, taking what I wrote out of context and weaponising it is not very fair (or respectful) and is in no way answering my request to provide reports of kernels having issues or not being tested thoroughly. If it was a LQ forum post, do you have a link please? I'd like to review any and all information relating to any errors that may have been caused by me.

Let's try to stay focussed and on point in this discussion.

Alright, let's bring this discussion to a close.

The Slackware ARM forum is a space specifically dedicated to Slackware ARM discussions. It's encouraged for everyone to share ideas for improvements openly and constructively, without fear of personal attacks.
You've chosen to use the Slackware ARM forum for the SARPi community, and I have provided some suggestions for improvements in this space, as I encourage everyone to do for Slackware ARM.


Upon revisiting our exchange, you have made me the subject of personal attacks, questioning my motives.
If someone wants to take ownership of the RPi support in Slackware ARM, will they also be on the receiving end of such vitriol?

As the creator of Slackware ARM, *I* rightfully hold authority over its presentation and how its name is used. Not you.
I've asked you to make specific changes, and you've refused.

I want to emphasize how disrespected I feel by this situation, and I've decided to conclude our communication here.

Thank you for sharing your concerns Stuart.

In what I believed was an opportunity to clear the air and gain some mutual understanding, it seems I was mistaken and have wasted your time.

It is regretable that you feel disrespected. Although, please note that I have intentionally avoided being confrontational or inappropriate in order to not provoke any unfavourable reactions. Also please note that I have been civil, kind, and respectful throughout, even while my work and efforts towards the SARPi Project was being, I feel, unjustly scrutinised and tarnished. There has certainly not been any vitriol or malice involved of any kind, at any point, from me.

If you feel that you are the victim of any improper conduct then please highlight how and when this occured so that I may address it and correct any errors in my wording. I will be more than willing to address any shortcomings in my behaviour and make amends. I do not wish to effectuate any discordance or inharmony on anyone. This is very important to me so please respond accordingly.

To be absolutely clear, and to avoid any misinterpretation and/or misunderstanding, I have not outright refused to make changes to the SARPi website. I have made changes, just not all of those that you've highlighted. As I wrote in a previous post, "That's all for now." I've also invited you to offer any suggestions you might have which may expediate the process, or contribute yourself in order to save myself some time and effort, in implementing your suggestions into my SARPi project. Although, from your reaction I now feel they have escalated from being suggested revisions/additions/amendments into absolute demands.

As I also wrote previously, your project is your responsibility and the SARPi Project is mine. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect people to work within considerate and respectful paramaters towards other individuals and their work, which I believe has been achieved and maintained by me in my work with the SARPi Project regarding Slackware.

Incidentally, there is the outstanding matter about revelations regarding certain (SARPi?) kernels not being tested thoroughly and producing errors. This is the third time I have requested information relating to these matters, as I'm genuinely very interested in investigating such issues. If you would be so kind as to facilitate me in following this up I would be most grateful.

Thank you for your time.

I've been able to implement a few more of your requirements into the SARPi Project website. I hope that these amendments meet with your approval.

1 members found this post helpful.

Thanks! I love what you've done :-)

Cheers
Stuart.

1 members found this post helpful.