On Thu, 26 May 2016 at 12:54:55 -0800, Britton Kerin wrote:
> I realize I'm years late to the party arguing about this stuff
Sorry to be so blunt, but yes, you are. This is a technical mailing list
for discussion of Debian development, and I don't think engaging in the
discussion you seem to be looking for (again!) is going to make Debian
any better. People who consider some or all of the components you've
mentioned to be a net benefit to Debian are unlikely to change their
minds based on what you've said; people who consider those components
to be a net detriment are unlikely to change their minds either. Please
can we pretend the rest of the thread has already happened, and move on?
(I also think your message was factually incorrect in places, and I
started to reply to that, but I'm not going to get into that because
it really isn't the point.)
> I sure hope debian can somehow continue to support alternative setups.
Debian consists of a lot of volunteers who support different components.
If you want a particular component or configuration to remain supported,
that means someone, or a lot of someones - maybe including you -
supporting it. Components that are a burden to the distribution will tend
to get removed; components that are a net benefit to the distribution
will tend to stay.
If old technologies and designs were superseded as aggressively as you
fear, I don't think Debian (1993) and its package build tools (dpkg,
1994) written in C (1972) and Perl (1987) would have much of a future :-)
S
