ext John Nowak wrote:
On Mar 13, 2006, at 9:01 AM, Jani H. Lahtinen wrote:
In case where features overlap, or when a new feature would be a
simple extension of existing ones, that is a good principle.
I think it goes beyond that. There are only so many features you can
cram into something before it becomes difficult maintain and
difficult to use. Sometimes I think you just need to say, "This
feature isn't necessary -- Let's leave it out." I personally think OS
X (and much Mac software in general) is a great example of this.
Despite what a lot of open source advocates say about feature bloat
in Windows and commercial software in general, OSS projects are often
the biggest offenders. I think the main reason for this is that it
takes a tough man (or woman) in charge to say "no" when necessary.
I'm glad Anselm can say no.
Well, it is hard (undecidable in fact) to determine what is necessary
and what is unnecessary. If being a real hard liner everything from the
kernel up (or even below that) is unnecessary "bloat". "Who needs
webbrowsers? You can view the html on the terminal."
I personally don't want any unnecessary graphics, but some might.
Would it be a good idea to have some place for storing such patches
for those who might want them (and leaving it for them to get them
actually compile)? ... or then not.
This seems fair enough, provided that Anselm isn't expected to spend
one minute making sure they work or maintaining them. To be honest
though, I'd expect that they'd end up in such a state of disrepair
that it isn't even worth cluttering the site with the link.
That is the idea, and yes it could lead to a page of messy
non-functional code. Like I said, I think wmii looks fine as it is.
Jani
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
http://wmii.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/wmii
