On Sat, Dec 04, 2004 at 11:06:32PM +1100, Nick Croft wrote: > I did a long-overdue dist-upgrade recently. Most packages were upgraded > without much evident fuss, change, or improvemnt. > > I did, however, notice some serious deterioration with some of the most used > packeage. E.g [...] > Is there a point at which software gets to be 'As good as it gets? Does the > development change hands and the new face needs to put his own unnneeded > stamp on the package? How can one guard against false development? Should I > save a 2003 Woody CD set and stay in that year from now on?
I don't know about a "Golden Age" as such -- I think it's just that we remember the good bits about the past and forget all the niggly crap that's been fixed in the new releases. I'd be inclined to submit bugs against the appropriate packages saying that you want your features back. Chances are they just got gutted somewhere along the line by accident because the developers thought that nobody actually gave a poop. > I can't help feeling the Golden Age has passed. We always think that. I thought my Slackware 3.0.0 was the Golden Age, and all beyond that was shit. I got over it. - Matt
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
