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