Steve Greenland <steveg <at> moregruel.net> writes: > > Like it or not, your software fits very much into the role played > by XMMS, such that someone who likes XMMS is more likely to choose > Audacious than, say, Rythymbox. That's why it's being discussed as a > "replacement". If we remove XMMS from the distribution, we have some > obligation to point users at similar tools. > > Since you obviously modeled Audacious on XMMS (via BMP), I'm not sure > why you find such comparisons offensive. > > Steve
Because every time distros try to do an xmms->audacious migration on us, it causes additional load on our development effort because people file bug reports and demand that we behave exactly like XMMS. I don't find the comparison offensive, I find the result of the comparison offensive, which is people dictating to us how our project will work. I cannot work efficiently under those conditions, and I don't suspect anyone else could either. So, it becomes a PR nightmare for us. That's why I take offense and ask for very strong clarification that we are not cloning XMMS to the letter. That's what "XMMS clone" means to these people. William -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
