Re: Removing openuniverse in favor of celestia (keep a virtual package?)
On 27-Dec-02, 14:09 (CST), Tomas Pospisek's Mailing Lists <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Dec 2002, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > Completely wrong, IMO. Celestia does not appear to be a continuation
> > of openuniverse, but an alternative.
> Well in a certain way celestia _is_ the continuation of openuniverse. The
> top news item on www.openuniverse.org says:
Yes, I read that. It says that the OU developers have decided that their
time is better spent helping celestia rather than competing with it --
celestia is a replacement for OU. What I meant by a "continuation" is
something that includes all the functionality of the previous project,
and that 99.9% of the users would be happy to view as the next upgrade
of the previous project, and would install (more-or-less) seamlessly,
using or converting the existing configuration files. I probably should
have used the word "fork" instead.
Anyway, my original point stands: unless there is some actual software
reason for celestia to conflict/replace OU, making it do so is a
significant inconvenience to OU users with no benefit.
The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the
world. -- seen on the net