On Fri, 8 Feb 2013 22:07:02 +0000 Debarshi Ray wrote: > So do we have multiple kernels in Fedora? We offer .deb variants of > Fedora? Let me say one thing: if you're going by examples, go with proper ones. There is vast difference of work needed to support two kernels and work needed to support two office suites. You know kernel is the base upon everything runs, right? Please, don't make the most basic component that cannot be even switched without a whole lot of work as an example for choices. You just cannot support two kernels in one distribution. It's unsustainable amount of work, many tools/libs would have to have two versions shipped depending on the used kernel... This is totally different from having two *end-user apps*.
> (Once upon a time Epiphany had multiple backends, before it adopted > WebKit as the only one [1]. So we atleast gave up on some "choice" > there.) Yes, because there's a really lot more work need to have two backends (epiphany-webkit/epiphany-gecko) than two frontends (e.g. epiphany, midori) working. Needless to say that the backends usually conflict in runtime, unlike the frontends. And yes, I'm strongly against having AOO in repos *if* it'll conflict in runtime with LO. I'm starting to feel you are advocating the single app approach for everything... That's just nuts, unless you're building a proprietary device you do not want your users to tackle with. It's not just about choice. The choice is already here. You can install AOO from upstream (they even provide RPMs). But that's a road to hell. We package things to make it easier for our users to install software, not to offer them the choice. Everyone capable can ./configure & make & make install... Is there anyone willing to do the packaging work for AOO? Yes? Than why the hell should we stop him? AOO is *not* LO, will likely be even more different in the future; and it's not some base component like package manager, kernel, pulseaudio... Should we just limit ourselves to having only some default apps for each task and leaving the rest to 3rd party sources (e.g. upstream)? I don't think so. Having to choice might be hard sometimes (yes, I had the very same reaction as you, when I stared at IIRC RH7 anaconda explaining the difference between KDE and GNOME by one having KDE and the other GNOME in the description...), but the choice is already here, we're just making sure that the user can use whatever he chose easily -- within some reasonable limits. Also, people coming to linux from windows are (still?) more likely to know about AOO than LO, but many of them already know about both of them and already made their choice in Win. We want to make it hard to them to keep their SW of choice on linux even if the SW in question is FLOSS? Martin
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
