| 1 |
2011/10/13 Olivier Crête <tester@g.o>: |
| 2 |
> We're imposing our deep integration because it's the only way to make a |
| 3 |
> compelling platform that "just works", forcing users to tell the |
| 4 |
> computer something the computer already knows is just plain lazy and |
| 5 |
> stupid. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
I'd also look at it another way. It is a lot easier to take a |
| 8 |
well-integrated platform and chop out the parts that you don't need, |
| 9 |
than to take a million pieces and build yourself an integrated |
| 10 |
platform. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
I think the key is to still define boundaries between the layers and |
| 13 |
interfaces such that you still can chop out parts. I think that there |
| 14 |
is a danger that we may get to a point where that becomes increasingly |
| 15 |
difficult. If KDE and Gnome were to come out with separate |
| 16 |
incompatible implementations of SysVInit, XDM, X11, and automounting |
| 17 |
then having both on the same system would no longer be a matter of |
| 18 |
just picking a session in the XDM interface. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
However, the vertical integration right now isn't that bad. We can |
| 21 |
deploy udev/dbus/etc and people who don't need it can just remove it |
| 22 |
without much fuss. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Rich |
Archives