Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
All this 'fork this fork that' threatening is really quite sad.
A fork is not a "threat". It's a suggestion to resolve problems outside the current project politics. I can't see why anyone would be offended by this. I know
its common in open source and linux in particular, but I certainly don't see threatening a fork and dilution of resources as in an way beneficial to Arch as a distro
Me neither. Where did i say that? and to us individually as users. It would be beneficial to the other "us users" which doesnt include you, but me. Which is why i have made suggestions to another user part of this other "us". Not to your "us".
I see dbus/hal and the rest of this bloat as part of a good user experience. This is a difference in opinion, not a heresy.
That's nice for you. You are welcome to get packages of abs and reconfigure them to add non upstream features, if you like them.
Having said all that, contributing the appropriate packages to the AUR is a very good initiative. Expand the choice of the user, I know some, maybe many, agree with you on minimalism w.r.t dbus/hal/the like. Forking is ridiculous and non-practical,
I already maintain a 50% fork. The remaining act is merely political. Obviously i will not bother to maintain a website and stuff if no one else cares contributing.
and it would be better for everyone involved in Arch if its not used as a proverbial hammer to get one's way.
I'm very sure my previous mail does not have any effect on the devs decision to follow their own founder or not. My hope is that it has an effect of users, so we can, in the event of failure, gather together and rebuild arch outside of the current project politics. -- Arvid Asgaard Technologies