Le mardi 17 juillet 2007 à 08:50 -0500, Steve Greenland a écrit : > > If you have nothing to say apart proving that you don't want to > > understand what people write, what's the point of contributing to a > > mailing list? > > You keep saying that because you don't use particular menu entries, and > because you don't understand why anyone would use those menu entries, > they should be removed.
They should be removed *by default*. > When others say that they *do* find those > entries useful, you say that well, we're not the important users, and > our use of those menu entries is irrelevant, and we can work around the > inconvenience. Well, if the maintainers have the extra burden to support two distinct menu systems, I'd understand their will to only support the one that works best. > My point, which I tried to make through what I thought was obvious > humorous exageration, was that NOBODY uses all of Debian. Apart from sarcasm being different from humour, that is obvious. > There are > huge chunks that I'll never use. To *me* they are useless clutter - > they make Package file downloads larger, they make finding things via > aptitude and apt-cache search more inconvenient, they fill up my disk > with useless translations. But because I agree with the "Debian is the > universal operating system" sentiment, I don't spend time trying to get > that "useless clutter" removed. I accept that many people find that > functionality useful, and get on with it. Good for you. I think that we would be able to better serve our users if we removed useless and/or unmaintained and/or buggy software from our archive. I'm not saying any software which isn't used by 90% of them should be removed, as you seem to imply, but we should reduce the functionality we are providing so that we can keep our quality level. -- .''`. : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code. `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to `- our own. Resistance is futile.
