On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 11:03:12AM +0100, Matthew East wrote: > On 7 June 2011 10:02, Alan Bell <[email protected]> wrote: > > yeah, I would very much hope that lightdm does not introduce more > > accessibility regressions. > > I'm taking this opportunity to post a link to this comment on the > proposed switch to lightDM from Matthew Garrett, in case people > reading here haven't seen it, it seems relevant to this discussion and > I haven't seen it mentioned before. > > It also briefly discusses impact on accessibility, albeit without > going into detail. > > http://mjg59.livejournal.com/136274.html
tl;dr version: "Every wart is earned in the process of fixing a bug; those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it, etc." Fairly bog standard rant against doing something new. Yeah, 'lightweight' does tend to be used as a euphemism for 'incomplete' far too often; I'm onboard with that. Sort of like using 'cheap' to describe a product or 'randomly' in a bug description. But come now, this is gdm we're talking about... I remember when Firefox first came out, there were some who felt that starting over from scratch after so much effort had gone into creating the Mozilla codebase was a mistake. Mozilla had a built-in HTML editor, and a calendar and email reader and lots more. Firefox did so much *less* than Mozilla. But who still uses Mozilla? Bryce Why bother having a baby, when there are plenty of fully grown homeless people available at your local freeway onramp? -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
