Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
All this 'fork this fork that' threatening is really quite sad.
A fork is not a "threat". It's a suggestion to resolve problems outside
the current project politics. I can't see why anyone would be offended
by this.
I know
its common in open source and linux in particular, but I certainly don't
see threatening a fork and dilution of resources as in an way beneficial
to Arch as a distro
Me neither. Where did i say that?
and to us individually as users.
It would be beneficial to the other "us users" which doesnt include you,
but me. Which is why i have made suggestions to another user part of
this other "us". Not to your "us".
I see dbus/hal and the rest of this bloat as part of a good user
experience. This is a difference in opinion, not a heresy.
That's nice for you. You are welcome to get packages of abs and
reconfigure them to add non upstream features, if you like them.
Having said all that, contributing the appropriate packages to the AUR
is a very good initiative. Expand the choice of the user, I know some,
maybe many, agree with you on minimalism w.r.t dbus/hal/the like.
Forking is ridiculous and non-practical,
I already maintain a 50% fork. The remaining act is merely political.
Obviously i will not bother to maintain a website and stuff if no one
else cares contributing.
and it would be better for
everyone involved in Arch if its not used as a proverbial hammer to get
one's way.
I'm very sure my previous mail does not have any effect on the devs
decision to follow their own founder or not.
My hope is that it has an effect of users, so we can, in the event of
failure, gather together and rebuild arch outside of the current
project politics.
--
Arvid
Asgaard Technologies
