On Thu, 2009-12-03 at 11:34 +0530, Piyush P Kurur wrote: > On Thu, Dec 03, 2009 at 01:54:10AM +0530, Raghavendra Prabhu wrote: > > One thing I don't understand here is - why people crib that package B should > > not have feature X. If you don't want that, ABS is for that. There are > > plenty of packages which have additional dependencies like that mplayer(like > > smbclient) or vlc(hal :) or lua). > > > I don't think it is about not having a feature X. For example > I think PnP is a worthwhile feature to have. But many do not like > hal/dbus. Again the counter argument is that disabling hal/dbus is > just an additional line in xorg.conf. Point well taken but if we can > compile xorg-server package without hal/dbus enabled and then > whomsoever wants to use hal/dbus make a small change in xorg.conf to > facilitate it (I dont know whether this is possible) I would prefer > such an xorg-server. Again it is purely my preference. Such an > xorg-server, I think will be both ``minimalist'' and ``featurefull'' > whatever those terms mean. It is not possible to turn on features which aren't compiled in. I presume you meant compiling it in but with it defaulting to not being used. This would both not satisfy those who don't want dbus/hal in the first place while also breaking those apps which DO need dbus/hal. > > > > Finally, true anti-desktop is using lynx or watching mplayer with ascii > > renderer :) , all in virtual terminal(with directfb if required) > > > > Yes many prefer lynx/w3m/elinks/edbrowse over other webbrowsers. But > saying that anti-desktop means mplayer with ascii is just streatching > it a bit too much. If you use screen + xterm + xmonad then you will, I > hope, see the advantage of not using gnome/kde. > Anti-desktop, as a movement, is well and good. Linux is about choice, after all. Not restraining choice. Hence why its counter-productive for 'anti-desktop' followers to insist that those who don't agree with them be disadvantaged.
