Neal Gompa wrote:
> There's a difference between half-baked and a roadmap of incremental
> improvement. This Change is an example of the latter.

No, it is actually an example of deliberately implementing a simplistic 
"solution" that lags behind the state of the art on the grounds that it is 
"simple", i.e., dumb.

Chris Murphy literally stated "you'll see there are many more knobs in 
nohang, much more jargon" as the reason not to use a smarter solution, i.e., 
this is just the usual GNOME attitude of not letting the user configure 
anything, which is again getting in the way of a useful solution.

(That said, I also have doubts that ANY userspace solution can reliably 
solve the problems at hand. But what is sure is that EarlyOOM's approach is 
too simple to be adequate. I already pointed out the ways in which it can 
end up doing the wrong thing.)

So it is not true that EarlyOOM is the best solution that exists out there. 
It is just the only one that fits the GNOME no-options design.

> If anything, your fanciful and speculative conjecture has done only harm
> for your credibility. You continue to attack and lambast every change
> proposed for the past few cycles, and you provide no useful alternatives.

One important point that you have to realize is that a change is not 
necessarily an improvement. A change can either be an improvement, or have 
no effect, or actually make things worse. Throughout the history of Fedora, 
there have been many change proposals that would just have made things 
worse. Some of those were thankfully shot down, but others were 
unfortunately implemented over our objections, with that same fallacious 
argument that you are floating here, i.e., that the opponents are supposedly 
just naysayers opposed to any change out of principle. And I think that the 
more Fedora matures, the lower the probability that a change will actually 
be an improvement will get.

As a result, there has been an accumulation lately of change proposals that 
I personally think are (or would be) detrimental, for various reasons. So I 
have also been opposing them all, and I fully understand why John is against 
so many changes. We both always state the reasons for why we disagree with 
the changes. I can only urge you to read those reasons and take them into 
consideration rather than just filing them off as "naysayer complaints". The 
fact that a person opposes many changes does not necessarily mean there is 
something wrong with that person, you have to also consider the possibility 
that there might be something wrong with all those changes after all.

We need to be careful not to run into the fallacy of allowing change just 
for the sake of change. We always need to evaluate whether the new state 
will actually be better than the old one, and learn to just say "no" 
otherwise. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

> My personal mission is to bring all the improvements we've done to the
> Linux desktop experience in Fedora Workstation to at least Fedora KDE,
> if not all Fedora desktop variants. And where it makes sense, I will
> attempt to bring these improvements to *all* Fedora variants.

There are a lot of those "improvements [Workstation has] done to the 
[GNU/]Linux desktop experience" that I definitely do not want to see on the 
KDE Spin: increased reliance on Flatpaks instead of packages, easier 
installation of proprietary drivers and other proprietary software, etc. I 
think those run counter to the principles of Fedora and of GNU/Linux as a 
whole. (And Linux is just the kernel of GNU/Linux.)

        Kevin Kofler
devel mailing list --
To unsubscribe send an email to
Fedora Code of Conduct:
List Guidelines:
List Archives:

Reply via email to