On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 06:18:14PM -0800, Alex Perez wrote: > James Cameron wrote on 1/17/2021 6:12 PM: > > It sounds like you share some of the same intentions as Martin Guy, > > who needed i386 support. He found what he needed with Trisquel. Have > > you tried that? > No, I'm interested in running on x86_64, EFI-compliant hardware. I > have no need or desire for Trisquel.
Thanks. That's my problem too; I'm not interested in i386, I'm not interested in Trisquel, in Fedora, or SoaS. In turn, because of how I'm funded. The situation reminds me of Jussi Pakkanen's talk at linux.conf.au about this time last year, where he described several open source project interations (iLN6wL7ExHU from 8:47 to 17:50), eventually concluding that "What does it say about the OSS community, if cooperating with people using something other than your chosen tool is seen as an act of desperation?" https://lca2020.linux.org.au/schedule/presentation/87/ My perspective is that expanding to include i386 or non-free packages is effectively a request to expand my scope of software maintenance, and that I should instead reduce complexity to reduce cost of maintenance. A more correct solution within this perspective is for you to use Fedora. -- James Cameron https://quozl.linux.org.au/ _______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
