On Sun, Aug 12, 2007 at 01:18:32PM +0000, William Pitcock wrote: > > It seems that you don't understand why we call it an XMMS replacement: > > it's not at all about having all the same features, it's about the core > > functionality. If we consider audacious an XMMS replacement it means > > that we think audacious is as good or even better then XMMS for the core > > functionality. If you don't like audacious to get many more users > > because of it, we might indeed consider other replacements...
> It's not that we don't like having a userbase, it's that Audacious is > philosophically different from XMMS which may result in a high support case > load > upon XMMS being replaced with Audacious, and people saying bad things about > Audacious because it's "not like XMMS". > I have observed that people consider the phrase "XMMS replacement" to be > synonymous to "XMMS clone" So take it up with these people who don't understand English instead of yelling at Debian on our -devel list, yeesh. It sounds to me like it *is* the case that you don't like having a userbase. The only way to avoid people drawing comparisons between XMMS and audacious is to not let them become aware of audacious's existence. If you have users, you're going to have support requests, and some of those are going to be about the differences with XMMS, because that's the space in which audacious exists. It would be nice if you came to terms with this fact instead of abusing Debian for true and reasonable statements that developers have made -- it's not our fault that audacious is a music player whose basic UI design imitates that of winamp/xmms. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
