Re: Packaging WM themes - question
Casper Gielen wrote:
>
> On Sun, May 27, 2001 at 06:45:10PM +0200, Viktor Rosenfeld wrote:
> >
> > Come on! I don't mean to be ignorant, but a 286 is 18 years old. The
> > 386 is only 3 years younger. No one is "depending" on hardware this old
> > -- not even in schools. At least not in Europe or North America.
> >
>
> You'd be shocked. I know of at least 2 schools in my town (120.000
> inhabitants) that are _still_ using 386'es. They could do without them,
> but as long as they are low on funds, they are happy with anything they
> get. And I'm living in the Netherlands, which is rather wealthy. In
> countries with less money those old machines are even more wanted.
Argh! We're talking in circles! I left high school two years ago, and
they were still using 386'es. I still know a couple of people there (eg
the guy who runs the network) and he tells me, that although they got
newer machines they still use those 386'es. But, my point is, that a
bigger machine is available for the task of *initially installing
Debian*. After this obstacle is done away with, nothing hinders them
using those old machines. I'm not argueing that a 386 is useless per
se, but I'm argueing that it doesn't have enough horse power for some
task (albeit a lot of tasks nowadays). I'm still using one myself!
BTW, I went to school in former East-Berlin, Germany which -- although
being situated in one of the richiest countries in the world -- is
extremely tight on its budget. At the time, I went to school, the city
would not employ any new teacher, because it couldn't afford to do so.
This went on for more than two years until the Senate realized the
disastrous implications. If your German is good enough, you might want
to check a Berlin newspaper to find out about the financial situation
here. You'll be surprised.
Anyway, my point is that it's *very* okay, to put old machines to some
use. I'm not arguing that we should forget all machines less powerfull
than a Gigahertz Athlon. No way! However, sacrifing functionality or
user choice (I believe, the thread started about the choices a user has
when installing themes) is not the way to go.
> I think this is not changing the core functionality of apt at all.
> Instead I want to make use of an apt feature. One that has been
> implemented on purpose: the ability to use multiple sources of software.
> This is hardly different from a system with or without packages from the
> non-free section. If you don't want non-free software you remove it from
> sources.list and you're computer won't even know non-free software
> exists.
>
> Now do the same for eg. KDE. If a user doesn't want KDE, he removes the
> appropriate line from sources.list and apt/dselect won't know about KDE
> and will not be slowed down because of it.
> I repeat, this does _not_ changing apt in any way, and for most users
> their will be no noticable difference.
Hurray, we're starting to agree on some terms. I think this is the best
solution (no ugly hack, easy to implement, easy to maintain, no extra
burdon for the end-user).
I started to argue, when people were suggesting to put all those
thirty-something themes into one big package, which I find plain stupid.
Cheers,
Viktor
--
Viktor Rosenfeld
WWW: http://www.informatik.hu-berlin.de/~rosenfel/
Reply to: