Jason van Zyl wrote: > Fair enough, development ease is certainly a valid use case but I > honestly see this as a limitation of the tools being used that aren't > flexible enough themselves to deal with different locations
This is the biggest trap of open source development. A lot of projects are not around any more because they fell prey to the "my tool would be great if other people would just shape up" syndrome. Or the worse, the "my tool .is. great and the rest of you can conform to it" syndrome. Yes, it would be great if the rest of the world built tools that were flexible, but three facts intrude: 1) They sometimes don't. 2) The probably never will. 3) You have no control over them. Yes, reality sucks. One last point: what you are basically suggesting above is that all the other tools in the world should be made flexible enough to allow you to make your tool less flexible. This doesn't seem like a defensible philosophy to me. Wordman --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
