Re: Please assume good faith (was Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME)
On 10/26/2013 09:17 PM, Olav Vitters wrote: On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 12:02:00AM +0100, Kevin Chadwick wrote: I'm fed up with repeated attempts to force components on the rest of the system, but that's mostly a fault of Gnome's upstream There seems to be a trend emanating from packages involving RedHat devs. I actually went to the RedHat site a few weeks ago to try and get some sort of oversight on this but there seemed to be no appropriate contact point (bookmarked). There are various maintainers+developers who would love to see GNOME support Wayland and nothing more. This due to code complexity and test matrix (too many different options and it becomes difficult to test things). And we do do continuous integration, plus I had to deal with the bugs caused by the introduction of Wayland support. Various of above mentioned maintainers/developers are sponsored by Red Hat. I say sponsored because they pretty much do what they think is good. I have not seen any corporate agenda (I also fail to understand why we have so many of them). Anyway, they just don't want code complexity. The *main* reason that GNOME will keep Wayland + X compatibility for a long time, thus introducing more bugs and slowing down full Wayland support, is the same GNOME release team person who urged to support Wayland. He's sponsored by Red Hat. In brief: The person mainly responsible for allowing people to rely on our X support for a much longer time is one of those Red Hat people. Not sure if you like Wayland or not, but something to keep in mind, if it wasn't up to this Red Hat person, X support would be die much more quickly. And this decision is not made due to forcing, it is to due supporting one thing well, not multiple things a bit with various degrees of testing and buggyness. If you don't mind that I ask: are you a GNOME developer? Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/526d1a43.40...@debian.org
Re: Please assume good faith (was Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME)
Can this be taken off-list? I don't care either way, I'd still take his points even if he wasn't. On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 9:50 AM, Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org wrote: On 10/26/2013 09:17 PM, Olav Vitters wrote: On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 12:02:00AM +0100, Kevin Chadwick wrote: I'm fed up with repeated attempts to force components on the rest of the system, but that's mostly a fault of Gnome's upstream There seems to be a trend emanating from packages involving RedHat devs. I actually went to the RedHat site a few weeks ago to try and get some sort of oversight on this but there seemed to be no appropriate contact point (bookmarked). There are various maintainers+developers who would love to see GNOME support Wayland and nothing more. This due to code complexity and test matrix (too many different options and it becomes difficult to test things). And we do do continuous integration, plus I had to deal with the bugs caused by the introduction of Wayland support. Various of above mentioned maintainers/developers are sponsored by Red Hat. I say sponsored because they pretty much do what they think is good. I have not seen any corporate agenda (I also fail to understand why we have so many of them). Anyway, they just don't want code complexity. The *main* reason that GNOME will keep Wayland + X compatibility for a long time, thus introducing more bugs and slowing down full Wayland support, is the same GNOME release team person who urged to support Wayland. He's sponsored by Red Hat. In brief: The person mainly responsible for allowing people to rely on our X support for a much longer time is one of those Red Hat people. Not sure if you like Wayland or not, but something to keep in mind, if it wasn't up to this Red Hat person, X support would be die much more quickly. And this decision is not made due to forcing, it is to due supporting one thing well, not multiple things a bit with various degrees of testing and buggyness. If you don't mind that I ask: are you a GNOME developer? Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/526d1a43.40...@debian.org -- All programmers are playwrights, and all computers are lousy actors. #define sizeof(x) rand() :wq
Re: Please assume good faith (was Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME)
Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org (2013-10-27): If you don't mind that I ask: are you a GNOME developer? That comes to mind: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Olav+Vitters+Gnome https://lists.debian.org/20131024192452.ga29...@bkor.dhs.org KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Please assume good faith (was Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME)
On 2013-10-27, Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org wrote: If you don't mind that I ask: are you a GNOME developer? Olav is a gnome developer, yes. /Sune -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/slrnl6q96e.j8.nos...@sshway.ssh.pusling.com
Re: Please assume good faith (was Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME)
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 11:00:42PM +0900, Norbert Preining wrote: On Do, 24 Okt 2013, Charles Plessy wrote: at this point, I would like to point at a very important part of the revised code of conduct that Wouter is proposing: Assume good faith. On Do, 24 Okt 2013, Adam Borowski wrote: My apologies, I overreacted. Oh holy s...sunshine (I have to be careful, otherwise I will be ostracised again) ... now that useless political correctness is taking over again. Just remember that if someone is offended it doesn't mean they are right. -- If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. --- Malcolm X -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131026082804.GO358@tal
Re: Please assume good faith (was Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME)
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 12:02:00AM +0100, Kevin Chadwick wrote: I'm fed up with repeated attempts to force components on the rest of the system, but that's mostly a fault of Gnome's upstream There seems to be a trend emanating from packages involving RedHat devs. I actually went to the RedHat site a few weeks ago to try and get some sort of oversight on this but there seemed to be no appropriate contact point (bookmarked). There are various maintainers+developers who would love to see GNOME support Wayland and nothing more. This due to code complexity and test matrix (too many different options and it becomes difficult to test things). And we do do continuous integration, plus I had to deal with the bugs caused by the introduction of Wayland support. Various of above mentioned maintainers/developers are sponsored by Red Hat. I say sponsored because they pretty much do what they think is good. I have not seen any corporate agenda (I also fail to understand why we have so many of them). Anyway, they just don't want code complexity. The *main* reason that GNOME will keep Wayland + X compatibility for a long time, thus introducing more bugs and slowing down full Wayland support, is the same GNOME release team person who urged to support Wayland. He's sponsored by Red Hat. In brief: The person mainly responsible for allowing people to rely on our X support for a much longer time is one of those Red Hat people. Not sure if you like Wayland or not, but something to keep in mind, if it wasn't up to this Red Hat person, X support would be die much more quickly. And this decision is not made due to forcing, it is to due supporting one thing well, not multiple things a bit with various degrees of testing and buggyness. -- Regards, Olav -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131026131723.gj29...@bkor.dhs.org
Re: Please assume good faith (was Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME)
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 01:41:29AM +0200, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: Trying to say [GNOME upstream] continuously try to [...] force their blessings on all users. is just wrong. Nobody is forced to use Gnome. Sorry, I've implicitly meant all _of their_ users. My apologies. I write a backup program. It uses its own storage format, and people sometimes ask if they could use tar files instead. But I am evil incarnate and FORCE them to use my own storage format instead. Should I repent and make my program allow my users to choose between storage formats? Maybe I should form a council of users who would dictate technical design decisions for me, which I would promise to be bound by and implement faithfully? Let me put this in another way: I try to make my program as good as it can be, and I think that the storage format I've developed is better than storing backups in tar files. I truly, deeply feel that using my format makes the program better, and that offering tar as a choice would be pretty much disastrous, because almost all of the features I am aiming for are impossible to implement well, or at all, using tar files as the backend. What you seem to view as a moral failing or sinister plot, I view as a strive for excellence. It is my impression that this is what is happening with GNOME. The upstream GNOME developers have a vision of what makes a good desktop environment, and are doing their best to implement that. Over the past 15 years, their vision has changed, several times, as they have learned more and gained experience about using computers for various things. Each time, some people like their changed vision, others do not. You don't agree with their vision. That is fine. Your reaction is to accuse them of things, and that's not cool. Accusations, insinuations, conspirary theories, or flippancy make for an extremely poor basis for constructive discussion. -- http://www.cafepress.com/trunktees -- geeky funny T-shirts http://gtdfh.branchable.com/ -- GTD for hackers -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131025075144.GM4353@holywood
Re: Please assume good faith (was Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME)
Lars Wirzenius liw at liw.fi writes: I write a backup program. It uses its own storage format, and people sometimes ask if they could use tar files instead. But I am evil incarnate and FORCE them to use my own storage format instead. Should […] can be, and I think that the storage format I've developed is better than storing backups in tar files. I truly, deeply feel that using my format makes the program better, and that offering tar as a choice would be pretty much disastrous, because almost all of the features I This *is* bad because if there is an existing userbase with tar (which isn’t true in the obnam case, sure, but would be true if you were to try forbidding all other backup programs in Debian) this will break their use cases, and *that* is what the systemd situation is all about. I don’t mind systemd in Debian existing and being installable. I could even live with systemd being the default on “modern desktop” architectures, even though I’d rather not have that in a server install on the same architecture. But I absolutely must be able to choose to use a different init system. Most of the loud-voiced GNOME/systemd proponents say that their way is the only way. (Which, AFAIHH (I don’t use GNOME myself, never found it usable even in 1.x days), is also true for GNOME: it is said to disable the ability of users to theme and customise it, and Torvalds’ opinions are well-known.) Basically, it boils down to • not breaking existing users, and • keeping tinkerability. bye, //mirabilos -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/loom.20131025t133534-...@post.gmane.org
Re: Please assume good faith (was Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME)
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 11:38:56AM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote: found it usable even in 1.x days), is also true for GNOME: it is said to disable the ability of users to theme and customise it, and Torvalds’ opinions are well-known.) GNOME tweak tool has existed since GNOME 3. It has been redesigned in 3.10 and offers the ability to change themes since the start. The redesigned means it receives development and attention. It is called tweak tool because it is considered tweaks, might not work at the same level as other options (though generally everything works fine). Aside from this we're improving theme support but due to that they break more often atm. Don't you use GNOME? -- Regards, Olav -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131025145447.gg7...@bkor.dhs.org
Re: Please assume good faith (was Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME)
On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 16:54:47 +0200, Olav Vitters o...@vitters.nl wrote: On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 11:38:56AM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote: found it usable even in 1.x days), is also true for GNOME: it is said to disable the ability of users to theme and customise it, and Torvalds’ opinions are well-known.) GNOME tweak tool has existed since GNOME 3. Like Windows TweakUI which has been necessary since nearly 20 years? Does GNOME need to emulate everything? Greetings Marc -- -- !! No courtesy copies, please !! - Marc Haber |Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom | http://www.zugschlus.de/ Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG Rightful Heir | Fon: *49 621 72739834 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/e1vzk2q-0007nb...@swivel.zugschlus.de
Re: Please assume good faith (was Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME)
I'm fed up with repeated attempts to force components on the rest of the system, but that's mostly a fault of Gnome's upstream There seems to be a trend emanating from packages involving RedHat devs. I actually went to the RedHat site a few weeks ago to try and get some sort of oversight on this but there seemed to be no appropriate contact point (bookmarked). -- ___ 'Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work together. Write programs to handle text streams, because that is a universal interface' (Doug McIlroy) In Other Words - Don't design like polkit or systemd ___ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/572460.92540...@smtp118.mail.ir2.yahoo.com
Re: Please assume good faith (was Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME)
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 06:15:28PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote: On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 16:54:47 +0200, Olav Vitters o...@vitters.nl wrote: On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 11:38:56AM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote: found it usable even in 1.x days), is also true for GNOME: it is said to disable the ability of users to theme and customise it, and Torvalds’ opinions are well-known.) GNOME tweak tool has existed since GNOME 3. Like Windows TweakUI which has been necessary since nearly 20 years? Does GNOME need to emulate everything? Please don't ask me such questions. Above ones are pointless, without content and I don't care about Windows. FWIW, GNOME is usually said to emulate tablets, iPhone, touchscreens and MacOS X. So if you want to ask me pointless question about Windows on debian-devel, maybe include those? Follow up to me personally please. -- Regards, Olav -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131026031415.gg29...@bkor.dhs.org
Re: Please assume good faith (was Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME)
On Do, 24 Okt 2013, Charles Plessy wrote: at this point, I would like to point at a very important part of the revised code of conduct that Wouter is proposing: Assume good faith. On Do, 24 Okt 2013, Adam Borowski wrote: My apologies, I overreacted. Oh holy s...sunshine (I have to be careful, otherwise I will be ostracised again) ... now that useless political correctness is taking over again. Clear critic with real background - many of us have the same experience - (how many times did my system break in the last years due to GNome?) are silence by Code of Conduct Now, let me know - is this the new way of silencing critical voices? This is what is happening in many policitcal and social landscape - say that it is not correct and put it under the carpet. Brave New World Norbert PREINING, Norbert http://www.preining.info JAIST, Japan TeX Live Debian Developer DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131024140042.ge31...@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at
Re: Please assume good faith (was Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME)
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 11:00:42PM +0900, Norbert Preining wrote: On Do, 24 Okt 2013, Adam Borowski wrote: My apologies, I overreacted. Clear critic with real background - many of us have the same experience - (how many times did my system break in the last years due to GNome?) are silence by Code of Conduct Now, let me know - is this the new way of silencing critical voices? No. But it is a gigantic leap forward in the culture of our community. Thanks Adam! -- Stefano Zacchiroli . . . . . . . z...@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack . . . o . . . o o Former Debian Project Leader . . @zack on identi.ca . . o o o . . . o . « the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club » signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Please assume good faith (was Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME)
On Thu, 2013-10-24 at 16:30 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: Now, let me know - is this the new way of silencing critical voices? No. But it is a gigantic leap forward in the culture of our community. Well arguably, one shouldn't be too surprised if people get more and more pissed off by GNOME _upstream_ . They continuously try to push their agenda through and force their blessings (most of the time broken, e.g. NM, GNOME Shell) on all users. And since it seems to get more and more a system for the lowest end of end-users, no longer usable by power-users (whatever that is),... and since it causes quite often such troubles like this now with systemd... people start even to think whether it should be removed from Debian. No big surprise, I guess. I know of my own tickets I've reported upstream and how outrageously GNOME deals with some critical things... Of course people should keep a respectful tone, though, and especially correctly differentiate between GNOME upstream (causing all this mess) and the Debian GNOME maintainers (usually having to live with it and trying to make the best out of it). Cheers, Chris. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1382632414.6907.76.ca...@heisenberg.scientia.net
Re: Please assume good faith (was Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME)
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 11:00:42PM +0900, Norbert Preining wrote: On Do, 24 Okt 2013, Charles Plessy wrote: at this point, I would like to point at a very important part of the revised code of conduct that Wouter is proposing: Assume good faith. On Do, 24 Okt 2013, Adam Borowski wrote: My apologies, I overreacted. Oh holy s...sunshine (I have to be careful, otherwise I will be ostracised again) ... now that useless political correctness is taking over again. Clear critic with real background - many of us have the same experience - (how many times did my system break in the last years due to GNome?) are silence by Code of Conduct Now, let me know - is this the new way of silencing critical voices? This is what is happening in many policitcal and social landscape - say that it is not correct and put it under the carpet. Brave New World Do you really have nothing better to contribute to this discussion than complaining about people being civil to each other? -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Please assume good faith (was Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME)
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 06:33:34PM +0200, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: I know of my own tickets I've reported upstream and how outrageously GNOME deals with some critical things... Could you give me a few bugnumbers and/or be more concrete what you mean with outrageously? Do you mean someone did not do exactly what you want, or that they were really outrageous as defined by http://www.thefreedictionary.com/outrageously? In case the latter, please give me some bugnumbers. Note: If you did not mean outrageous, please do not use that word. -- Regards, Olav -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131024194208.gb29...@bkor.dhs.org
Re: Please assume good faith (was Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME)
On Thu, 2013-10-24 at 21:42 +0200, Olav Vitters wrote: Could you give me a few bugnumbers and/or be more concrete what you mean with outrageously? Yeah I could, but this already turned far too much into a flame war. There's e.g. the bug that Evolution silently corrupts eMails, which is known now for years upstream, who even try to actively hide that fact away. The same for SSL/TLS which is completely useless in Epiphany,.. again known for a long time. I'd call such cases even intentional malicious behaviour against user. I'm sure you can easily find the related bugs, but please keep them away from here, since the flames do not need even more coals to burn higher. Do you mean someone did not do exactly what you want, or that they were really outrageous as defined by http://www.thefreedictionary.com/outrageously? In case the latter, please give me some bugnumbers. Note: If you did not mean outrageous, please do not use that word. I guess I need no teaching from you what some words mean or how I use them :) Cheers, Chris. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1382645273.6907.90.ca...@heisenberg.scientia.net
Re: Please assume good faith (was Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME)
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 10:07:53PM +0200, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: I'd call such cases even intentional malicious behaviour against user. I'm sure you can easily find the related bugs, but please keep them away from here, since the flames do not need even more coals to burn higher. Those two sentences are conflicting. Either be nice, or don't suggest you are. -- Regards, Olav -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131024203726.gd29...@bkor.dhs.org
Re: Please assume good faith (was Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME)
This seems a little bit of a distraction from the issue at hand (Debian Development) — perhaps you and the OP could follow up off list? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131024205058.ga13...@bryant.redmars.org
Re: Please assume good faith (was Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME)
On Thu, 2013-10-24 at 22:37 +0200, Olav Vitters wrote: On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 10:07:53PM +0200, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: I'd call such cases even intentional malicious behaviour against user. I'm sure you can easily find the related bugs, but please keep them away from here, since the flames do not need even more coals to burn higher. Those two sentences are conflicting. Either be nice, or don't suggest you are. I don't see what you mean? I said one should be respectful and polite, but this doesn't mean one has to conceal the truth, does it? If I would have called GNOME upstream assh*** or anything similar (which I did not and which is not my intention),... then I'd be impolite. But stating that IMHO a lot goes wrong in which ways GNOME has chosen and that there are also critical issues that go beyond things like One doesn't like GNOME Shell or whatsoever... has nothing to do with being nice or not. Cheers, Chris. smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: Please assume good faith (was Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME)
On 25 October 2013 03:33, Christoph Anton Mitterer cales...@scientia.netwrote: Well arguably, one shouldn't be too surprised if people get more and more pissed off by GNOME _upstream_ . They continuously try to push their agenda through and force their blessings (most of the time broken, e.g. NM, GNOME Shell) on all users. If you don't like Gnome, nobody is forcing you to use it. There are alternatives. e.g. KDE. I use Awesome myself. Trying to say [GNOME upstream] continuously try to [...] force their blessings on all users. is just wrong. Nobody is forced to use Gnome. -- Brian May br...@microcomaustralia.com.au
Re: Please assume good faith (was Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME)
On Fri, 2013-10-25 at 09:39 +1100, Brian May wrote: If you don't like Gnome, nobody is forcing you to use it. Well actually it's not that easy to avoid all of it, at least you get some libraries even when using 3rd party GTK/GNOME apps. Trying to say [GNOME upstream] continuously try to [...] force their blessings on all users. is just wrong. Nobody is forced to use Gnome. Sorry, I've implicitly meant all _of their_ users. My apologies. Cheers, Chris. smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: Please assume good faith (was Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME)
Le 25/10/2013 00:39, Brian May a écrit : On 25 October 2013 03:33, Christoph Anton Mitterer cales...@scientia.net mailto:cales...@scientia.net wrote: Well arguably, one shouldn't be too surprised if people get more and more pissed off by GNOME _upstream_ . They continuously try to push their agenda through and force their blessings (most of the time broken, e.g. NM, GNOME Shell) on all users. If you don't like Gnome, nobody is forcing you to use it. There are alternatives. e.g. KDE. I use Awesome myself. Trying to say [GNOME upstream] continuously try to [...] force their blessings on all users. is just wrong. Nobody is forced to use Gnome. I agree with you. As an other datapoint, I use the latest gnome and I am quite happy with it. I also use systemd on my laptop and I am quite happy with it. If I were unhappy, I would have switched to something else. Sincerely, -- Jean-Christophe Dubacq signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Please assume good faith (was Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME)
Le Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 02:09:46AM +0200, Adam Borowski a écrit : Also, GNOME does _not_ absolutely need systemd. Proof: Ubuntu. This part of its packaging in Debian strikes me as being intentionally malicious to push an agenda. And this is not the first time, we had this with Network Manager already. Hi Adam, at this point, I would like to point at a very important part of the revised code of conduct that Wouter is proposing: Assume good faith. http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2013/05/msg00084.html I use GNOME, I like it a lot, and would be extremely disapointed if in the future I can not have it anymore because regular fingerpointing and accusation would be driving out people who undertake a such a heavy task as maintaining a destkop environment. Cheers, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131024012552.ga29...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: Please assume good faith (was Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME)
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 10:25:52AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: Le Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 02:09:46AM +0200, Adam Borowski a écrit : Also, GNOME does _not_ absolutely need systemd. Proof: Ubuntu. This part of its packaging in Debian strikes me as being intentionally malicious to push an agenda. And this is not the first time, we had this with Network Manager already. at this point, I would like to point at a very important part of the revised code of conduct that Wouter is proposing: Assume good faith. http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2013/05/msg00084.html My apologies, I overreacted. I'm fed up with repeated attempts to force components on the rest of the system, but that's mostly a fault of Gnome's upstream, who are not even malicious themselves but merely don't care about portability to other systems. They don't get paid for making it work on Debian nor *BSD. The way both Network Manager (twice) and now systemd are pushed in the Debian packaging does leave a bad taste, but I should have limited my (harsh already) words to merely pushing an agenda. The word malicious was really uncalled for. Deep apologies. -- ᛊᚨᚾᛁᛏᚣ᛫ᛁᛊ᛫ᚠᛟᚱ᛫ᚦᛖ᛫ᚹᛖᚨᚲ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131024020300.gb30...@angband.pl
