On Nov 9, 2007 8:59 AM, Thomas Bächler <thomas@archlinux.org> wrote:
I was about to start this thread just this morning, but didn't have the time. Here is what I think: The Arch way is to keep things as untouched as possible and frankly, our kernel has become full of stuff that I don't see a reason for.
Yes yes yes. I don't understand when this happened. When I first started using Arch, the kernel was barebones and vanilla. If a user wanted something exotic, they used ABS, and it's done. Now there seems to be this attitude of "why rebuild it, we'll do it for you" - which is shit. We've switch gears for the worse. The original view for Arch was selfish. The original view was "this is the distro *I* want, and screw you if you don't like it". Now we're switching over to "We'll make the distro you guys want'. We're losing touch. Thomas is right here - there no reason for us to support half the shit in the kernel that we do. There are some exceptions, yes (unionfs and squashfs were added to support _our_ tools, which again follows the "this is my distro" creed). When did this happen? When did all you guys stop making a distro for yourselves, and start making it for other people?