On 01/02/2016 05:24 PM, Magnus Therning wrote: > The larger, and very philosophical question is "How user un-friendly can > upstream make it before Arch decides to *not* package as upstream > intends?" (Answering this requires keeping in mind that Arch users are > unlikely to fall squarely into the target group of upstream.)
This is a very good question to ask imho. In a perfect world, we would just fork and be done with it. However, it is not a perfect world. Forking requires time and effort, and it generally kills the software. (Here I am with several installs that have both Firefox and Pale Moon for compatibility reasons.) Most Arch users definitely do not fall into Mozilla's target group (an imaginary "average Joe" as I like to call it). We made this decision when we decided to install Arch as opposed to Ubuntu, Mint, OpenSUSE, or any other distro that does a decent job of configuring itself automatically. In 2015, we have seen a surprisingly large push for user un-friendliness in general. Firefox proposing add-on signing and removing features such as "complete" themes were just a couple examples. The GNOME folks are talking about breaking GTK themes again. I have lost track of how many "statically linked" QT libraries (e.g. bundled with Dropbox) that are completely broken. And in the world of other OSes, the Windows 10 release basically added spyware at the OS level to millions of users' PCs. So, the real question is where do you draw the line when something is un-friendly? And what do you do when the line is crossed? --Kyle Terrien
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
