On 04/11/2011 06:26 AM, Martin Owens wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-04-11 at 04:22 -0700, Scott Ritchie wrote:
>> I think it's the height of arrogance for us to tell a user that we're
>> going to deliberately break his application because it wasn't updated
>> to
>> use our new indicator library.
>
> We tell users all the time that we've broken their windows application
> by not implementing any windows apis. No guarantees.
>

The difference here is their application worked on a previous version of
Ubuntu.  Regressions for current users are worse than other kinds of
problems.

> So, do we guarantee completely that gnome 2.x apps will function in
> Unity? If we do, then we should support the entire API (somehow),
> otherwise we be honest and say we support a major subset which may mean
> your app won't work completely.
>
> It can hardly be arrogance so long as we're honest about what we
> support.
>
> Martin Owens
>

There's a difference between supporting something and not intentionally
breaking it.

-- 
ubuntu-desktop mailing list
ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop

Reply via email to