[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Dependency Champion

Beartooth wrote:
On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 13:31:05 -0800, Gordon Messmer wrote:
If you instruct the tool to remove a package, it does not remove other
packages randomly or haphazardly.  You may not understand the package
relationships, but that does not make them wrong.

Nobody has suggested that any mental state makes them wrong. What does make them wrong, dead wrong, is a fundamental principle of Unix -- every tool should do *one* job, and do it well.

Now you're arguing philosophy against fact, where "wrong" doesn't mean "incorrect" but "not the way I think it should be done". If you're convinced of your philosophy, you're free to contribute a better solution.

Pango does one job, and does it well. Pango does text layout. The intention behind pango is that it can lay out any text, including Thai. The pango developers reused an existing library for Thai layout rather than writing their own. Pango is a reusable component that builds on other reusable components; another popular development philosophy.

You'll find that near the front of any book introducing people to linux. (Remember books? You probably still have some. They're very good for things like history, which doesn't change much.)

Your condescending attitude will convince no one that you are right or reasonable, nor will it go far toward creating a community of people who are willing to provide you with advice or assistance in the future. Consider the ideal conduct of the community that you would like to be a part of, and act to create it.

In most such books, you'll also find an assurance that that principle is what makes *ix the triumph that it is, and all the works of Redmond the creeping disasters that they are.

Such assurances remain speculation.

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]