> Probably not until they have aproblem, You're too optimist.
> No - The fix , as with all fixes, should be applied in the fewest number > of places. No, the fix should be at the root of the problem. > No - they just wouldn't bother. Package maintainers aren't out to screw > you - they are out to make others lives easier Bullshit. They e.g. include patches and modules I will not have anything to do with, in the Ion package itself, instead of separately. That's not just "making life easier", it's being a dickhead. Removing a startup message could be seen as "making life easier", although it really is a dickhead action. > Most development should be cathedral style, with a bazzar as "unstable". The distros take the bazaar unstable snapshots of software, and fraudulently provide them as "stable" in their megafrozen cathedrals. > My work machine must "just work"(TM) I don't have time to fiddle with it The distros don't deliver. FOSS doesn't deliver. I don't have the time to fix fonts on every upgrade, and yet FOSS keeps becoming more and more AA/XML-fascist. I don't have the time for configuring udev brain damage to my needs. And I don't have the time to compile software when distros provide old and broken versions, instead of recent ones. > Yes - because "The Party" is the best placed to package them in a > consistent manner for their users. And this purported "consistency" comes at an expense of forming a few powerful central parties that oppress authors -- and soon users too. There can not be that many distros with considerable package collections. Consequently power is centralised in their hands. They become the gatekeepers of software available to users. Microsoft has less power over the software users use on Windows, than the biggest distros over the software people use on Linux. "They" were right about the comm^Wcollectivist nature of FOSS, although on wrong grounds. Copyright was originally purportedly created to protect authors from publishers -- the filty capitalists. In practise the publishers use it against both users and authors, who have to hand over the copyright to get access to the publishing channels they control. Copyleft was purportedly created to, well, protect software from those filthy capitalists. In practise copyleft licenses just hand over power from authors to another set of publishers -- the free software Party. That's (copy)right and (copy)left for you. Two faces of the same coin. > >I've had enough of the FOSS herd, and how it's destroying everything I > >once thought could be great. I really am universes distant from them. > Not really, you just regard yourself as the "one true way". If flexible dynamically extensible and non-monoculturist software is the "one true way", then so be it. For the FOSS herd, Party control, huge monoliths, anti-aliasing, udev, UTF-8, WIMP, etc. are the one true way. > I'd also love to see a WM that encouragees it's users to contribute back, Ion is modular. But the moronic FOSS herd does not like modular code: it wants the original author to maintain their shoddy patches that he does not care about. That is, once again they want the authors to be their slave, just like the distros do. -- Tuomo
