[arch-general] Another rant on arch way abuse and false promises

[Arvid Picciani]

Ng Oon-Ee wrote:

> Design simplicity? How is --enable-dbus less simple than --disable-dbus
> or the equivalents?

My argument was "--enable-dbus"  vs ""  ie the defaults.


> Simplicity isn't a hammer with which to attack every package that
> doesn't conform to minimalism by your definition.

Yes you can. Otherwise what is there difference between arch and ubuntu 
or whatever your prefered desktop os is?

> Are you suggesting the
> removal of KDE/Gnome from the repos? Because to disable dbus would
> require:-
> a) Parallel packages be maintained with dbus enabled for usage of gnome
> and the like packages
> OR
> b) Gnome and the like will have to be moved to AUR/community since they
> would need recompiling some core packages for dbus support.

I suggest fixing them instead, so they compile with the default options 
of their dependencies.  Preferable fixing them upstream of course.


> Neither of the options seems much like design simplicity to me. 

I have provided a way that confirms with the arch way.

> It would
> be good if the UNIX way (tm) or the Arch Way (tm) is not treated as some
> kind of religious doctrine. 

It is what arch is based on. I can't see why people who follow some 
projects root ideas have to leave the project because somone else has 
other ideas.

> Systems evolve and grow, and the desktop
> does as well, thankfully.

And thankfully they grow beyond your gnome/kde world :)


-- 
Arvid
Asgaard Technologies