On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 11:34:31 -0400, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > Having commercial addon things that can't keep up with the pace of > development of fedora core work out of the box is the point? Uh, as already pointed out Loki Setup is open source. Being non-commercial doesn't magically mean people jump up and down to rewrite it every few years. > I don't think so. I'm actively hostile to any decision that stresses > the needs of slow moving commercial vendors in the decision making > process for fedora core development. What makes you think ID Software are slow moving? Maybe it's just that rewriting code that's been tested, debugged and successfully deployed for little to no benefit is a recipe for commercial disaster? Seriously. Often these programs aren't internationalised at all, so better i18n support isn't a compelling reason to rewrite Loki Setup, and neither is support for the latest theme engines. It's only a setup program, after all. > Especially when those commercial vendors are using some sort of package > installation method that doesn't interface with the management system > fedora is using ... Except they don't all use RPMs, for well documented reasons. Let's not get into that one again. > So if the current situation is even worse than you realize... perhaps > your arguing about the wrong thing. Libraries and components that > aren't going to be actively used by applications IN core are going to be > dropped over time... its the only way to make room for new things that > need to be in Core. No it's not. Windows XP provides compatibility for applications written over a decade ago, yet it still fits on one CD. The definition of what's "core" and what isn't seems pretty vague to me. There's no need to drop things as more stuff is added, just be more conservative about adding things! There's no need for FC to have loads of apps out of the box. It's more important IMHO that it's easy to use and Just Works. > Instead people like yourself who are concerned about this, need to find > a way to make the installation of compatibility items 'just work' when > they are needed.. if they are needed... on individual systems. There's no way to do this currently. Possibly if distributions had provided a single consistent packaging scheme from the start, Loki Setup would never have been written. But it didn't work out that way, and now we have a legacy issue to deal with. Sucks but that's life. Maybe there are lessons to learn here. > -jef"worrying about ANY commercial vendor's development timescale is an > absolutely sure way to stagnate this project"spaleta Yeah right, just like MacOS X is stagnating. Whatever. thanks -mike
