On Wed, 2009-12-02 at 10:30 +0100, Arvid Picciani wrote: > Ng Oon-Ee wrote: > > Simplicity isn't a hammer with which to attack every package that > > doesn't conform to minimalism by your definition. > > Yes you can. Otherwise what is there difference between arch and ubuntu > or whatever your prefered desktop os is? The difference certainly isn't in minimalism, else we shouldn't even provide gnome/kde. The objective of Arch isn't to be different from Ubuntu, any more than the objective of Linux isn't to be different from Windows. > > > Are you suggesting the > > removal of KDE/Gnome from the repos? Because to disable dbus would > > require:- > > a) Parallel packages be maintained with dbus enabled for usage of gnome > > and the like packages > > OR > > b) Gnome and the like will have to be moved to AUR/community since they > > would need recompiling some core packages for dbus support. > > I suggest fixing them instead, so they compile with the default options > of their dependencies. Preferable fixing them upstream of course. The term 'fixing' implies something is broken. DBus and hal are not (contrary to your personal experience) broken for the majority of users. There's only so much breakage an open source package can have before users start leaving (look at initial KDE4 releases for an example). Removing dbus and hal is not 'fixing' anything, its making decisions based on politics. > > > Neither of the options seems much like design simplicity to me. > > I have provided a way that confirms with the arch way. > > > It would > > be good if the UNIX way (tm) or the Arch Way (tm) is not treated as some > > kind of religious doctrine. > > It is what arch is based on. I can't see why people who follow some > projects root ideas have to leave the project because somone else has > other ideas. Arch was never based on 'only use non-dbus/hal/any other new thing packages'. Once again, if you object to dbus etc on the grounds of minimalism, why not campaign for removing gnome/kde? The net effect is the same, and the likelihood of it getting implemented is about the same as well. > > > Systems evolve and grow, and the desktop > > does as well, thankfully. > > And thankfully they grow beyond your gnome/kde world :) And here I was thinking that growing involved accepting change and not stagnating in an 'old is best' mind-set. Just because "it's always worked without this new-fangled thing" doesn't mean "this new-fangled thing is bloat and shouldn't be used". Whyever did we make computers with more than 8MB of RAM....
