Re: MATE 1.8 has now fully arrived in Debian
Russ Allbery wrote:
>Thorsten Glaser <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> Yes, I fully agree. But _please_ also realise that there are people,
>> a non-neglibile number of them, for whom these frameworks are not an
>> improvement, and who wish to be not forced to use them.
>That's fine for you to feel that way, but that feeling does not obligate
>anyone else to do work, nor does it obligate upstreams who see code and
I think it *does* morally obligate them to at least try.
>conceptual simplification benefits for dropping non-logind approaches to
>maintain support they don't like. If you want to be able to avoid new
>frameworks that the general community of Linux developers feel materially
AFAIHH (correct me if I'm wrong) the head Linux developer himself
is not all that fond of the Poettering/Sievers duo.
>My family had a Betamax VCR. The format was arguably much better than
>VHS. It didn't get support, maintaining both formats wasn't viable, and
>it died. We bought a VHS VCR.
Yeah, my father complains about that too, a lot.
But this is precisely why we're in an OSS movement here.
We can change this, and we should, so that the other
solutions do *not* die out. We should *not* accept the
might of "the others all do this"!