On Jan 05, Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote: > People who have been using a configuration for many years naturally > become upset when they are told that it has been `unsupported' for all > of this time and that, implicitly, changes are going to be made which > will break it. I think that your summary is correct, and I am quite sure that it would be a bad engineering practice to make technical decisions based on people's emotions. > It is this kind of apparent proposal to nonconsensually impose changes > which is generating upset. In 2004 people used to complain that udev was being imposed on them. Last year it was about systemd. And now: https://qa.debian.org/popcon-graph.php?packages=systemd-sysv+sysvinit-core+udev&show_installed=on&want_legend=on&want_ticks=on&from_date=2014-01-01&to_date=&hlght_date=&date_fmt=%25Y-%25m&beenhere=1 > This thread contains a fair few assertions that certain configurations > are `broken' or `unsupported'; but these assertions sit alongside > reports from actual users that these configurations do work for them, > and expressions of the wish that they should continue to do so. There is a significant difference between concepts like: - something works for me - something works and: - I want something to be supported - the people actually working on something want to support it -- ciao, Marco
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature