1 |
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013: |
2 |
Tom Wijsman wrote: |
3 |
> "Steven J. Long" wrote: |
4 |
> |
5 |
> > The core system has to be a usable basis to build "everything" from. |
6 |
> |
7 |
> I do agree with this except for "shaky"; it is a nice goal to pursue... |
8 |
> |
9 |
> That still does not make us able to do it or make it a realistic goal. |
10 |
|
11 |
But it's exactly what the standard Gentoo install supplies, or used to. So |
12 |
it's very realistic, since it's the basis we've been using for a decade. |
13 |
|
14 |
And you are able to do it. Losing that capability is nothing more or less |
15 |
than a regression for a meta-distribution. |
16 |
|
17 |
> > > Making such a design choice isn't a fault. There is no need for |
18 |
> > > blame. |
19 |
> > |
20 |
> > Design choices have consequences in terms of where manpower can go, |
21 |
> > as well as in terms of end-user capability and flexibility, |
22 |
> > especially when one of the "options" has far-reaching implications |
23 |
> > for the rest of the stack, such that it is a question of "my way or |
24 |
> > the high way," which seems counter to the idea of choice i hear so |
25 |
> > much about. |
26 |
> |
27 |
> "My way or the high way" is giving good service to just a set of users, |
28 |
> because you can't listen and support everyone with limited resources; |
29 |
> as a result it causes alternatives to be created, effectively giving |
30 |
> choice. |
31 |
|
32 |
This is a total non-sequitur, given that we already have choice. Taking it |
33 |
away does not create choice: it merely restricts everyone until a "hate" |
34 |
fork happens, or some other alternative is provided, to restore the previous |
35 |
state of affairs. |
36 |
|
37 |
Though to be honest, your argument is more akin to a conceptual discussion as |
38 |
to "whether an argument could be made" rather than "what is the best way |
39 |
forward in the long-term for the diverse user-base." Not very practical, imo. |
40 |
|
41 |
"Giving service to a set of users" is not at all the same as "my way or the |
42 |
high way." The latter is what happens when you get non-modular software that |
43 |
tries to do too much, under the banner of "One True Way" to disguise the awful |
44 |
coupling, however it's dressed up. |
45 |
|
46 |
The former is what happens when you install say an httpd to serve an intranet. |
47 |
It doesn't dictate what other pieces of software you can use for orthogonal |
48 |
purposes (or suddenly expand its feature-base to include everything else so it |
49 |
isn't orthogonal any more.) |
50 |
|
51 |
> This is a natural thing to happen, as everything supporting |
52 |
> everything does not sound possible at all; it is therefore unrealistic. |
53 |
|
54 |
What's unrealistic is expecting us to swallow regressions as progress. |
55 |
|
56 |
> > So it's perfectly reasonable for them to be questioned and criticised. |
57 |
> |
58 |
> Not sure what and whom you mean to refer to by this. |
59 |
|
60 |
"Design choices." Hell, that's one of the main purposes of this list; it's |
61 |
why the GLEP process mentions the list, for example. |
62 |
|
63 |
|
64 |
Sorry for delay, missed this in my inbox. |
65 |
Regards, |
66 |
steveL. |
67 |
|
68 |
-- |
69 |
#friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-) |