On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 11:07:45AM -0800, prad wrote: > On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 11:11:48 -0700 > Chad Perrin <per...@apotheon.com> wrote: > > > I don't recall anyone saying "I'm with such-and-such a FreeBSD > > development team, and these are the reasons we aren't going to do > > anything about that at this time:". > > > i don't either, but these development teams do exist: > http://www.freebsd.org/projects/index.html > and so does a mechanism for initiating projects: > "If you feel that a project is missing, please send the URL and a short > description (3-10 lines) to w...@freebsd.org."
That is a much, much better response to questions about improving desktop-oriented functionality than the sort of thing I've been seeing lately from certain anti-lots-of-stuff people on this list: because linux got exactly that way and it sucks now. That's not what I'd call a productive response, nor is it well supported. It doesn't serve as a viable argument -- it's just obstinate refusal to entertain the idea that functionality isn't bad just because its most obvious use is desktop-oriented. > > and i guess as tyson explained there needs to be a balancing of limited > resources. There must always be such a balance -- but I don't see how that in any way prevents us from discussing whether the resources exist. > > > On the other hand, their statements *do* imply that *my* position is > > illegitimate in some way > > > i don't think so. it's more along the lines of "we don't need this in > light of the priorities". Actually, it's more like this: because linux got exactly that way and it sucks now. > > however, i do think michael powell makes a > very good point about "setting a very dangerous precedent" by ending up > allowing "third parties to have the ability to dictate to the devs > what code goes into FreeBSD?" I don't think anything I said suggests we let third parties dictate anything. Please point out where I suggested such a thing. We just need to make sure that we don't confuse "listening to suggestions and discussing their viability, and their technical pros and cons," with "taking orders from MS Windows users." > > > Some people don't know that, and are basically told to go > > away by some people when they bring it up. Still other people > > suggest alternate approaches to fixing the problem, and are also > > basically told to go away, when a more appropriate response would be > > to say "I think you should talk to the people at the swfdec and gnash > > projects about that," in most cases. > > > ok so here's a solution. whenever someone tells people to go away (i > don't think it has been done quite that way, but i see little point in > going into that here), surely others can point to those who are in the > appropriate projects. that way you have the choice of pursuing the > matter or seeking an alternative os. Maybe not "quite that way", but the implication has, at times, been unmistakable. Of course, if someone points people at the appropriate venue for discussing something *after* someone else has said "FOAD", it may already be too late. My preference would be for people who don't have something productive to say, who only want to scare people away, to keep it to themselves. -- Chad Perrin [ content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] Quoth H. L. Mencken: "In this world of sin and sorrow, there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican."
Description: PGP signature