Let's not forget the end users might also be programmers. As a programmer I appreciate the increased efficiency and better design. What if we want to tinker with the code? What I'm trying to say is that there's more than one angle to address. It's an evolving process. If there are ideas to improve the system, that's great, but I don't think we should get too harsh.
On Monday 07 October 2002 10:51 pm, Dale Huckeby wrote: > On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, Todd Lyons wrote: > > David Guntner wrote on Sun, Oct 06, 2002 at 08:33:02PM -0700 : > > > I was wondering about that myself. Thanks for the information, I'll > > > give that a try. But I definitely agree with Toshiro; it's a major > > > step *backwards*. The rpmdrake that comes with 9.0 is amazingly > > > > Instead of a seperately written program hooking into both urpm and rpm > > libs, there is anow a series of programs hooking into the urpm libs. > > Simpler to maintain and better compatibility. It is indeed a step > > forward from the programmer side of things. From the user side of > > things, it could be perceived as a step backwards. Once you learn the > > different methods and get used to it, you'll realize that it is a much > > better and more stable product. > > Is the end-user's convenience less important than the programmer's? > Who is the product being developed for, anyway? Although the new version > is pretty, and I appreciate that it's easier for the programmer, I too > think it's a step backward in functionality for the actual user. I might > change my mind, but so far I *don't* think it's a better product. > > Dale Huckeby
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
