Re: Indy closed choice ?

[Jean Francois Martinez <jfm2@club-internet.fr>]

"Eugene C." a écrit :

> I read the future of "Indy" thread with passion.
> I agree the idea of an "add-on" allow to spend more
> time on what is close to the user than re-inventing
> the wheel.
> As time is scarce, it is probably a wise decision.
>
> I understand Jean Francois point of view regarding his
> selection of a distribution.
> He seems to be mostly the only one working on it. So I
> agree with him on the fact he can decide what ever he
> feel is a good choice.

> Meanwhile, I have some difficulty to understand the

> apathy of most people on this list regarding the
> choice proposed.
>
> I feel it is a little bit too totalitarian one.
>

My idea about Indy has ever been one where users instead of
passively waiting for what the distribution people think is good
for them, participate in its molding.  And that implies that
Indy aims to be a democracy.   But while spectators can tell their
opinion I have ever thought that it was work on Indy who gave right
to vote.   For now I have the majority of the votes, and that does
not make me happ.

> Linux is about choices, why focus on one distribution
> ?
>
> Can't Indy evolve one more step and be distribution
> independent ?
>

Let's see a very simple problem: X robustness.  Most distros
rely on a font server and if the user shot it down thinking he does
not need it then he will be trapped on the comand line.  It is very
simple
to build a config file + startup file where X will revert to a fixed
font path
if it does not find the font server.  End result is that X is now more
robust.
However in order to implement the fix you need to hack the X
configurator
and each distrib has its own so you have to hack N configurators.

                                            JFM