On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 4:53 PM, Sebastian Beßler <sebast...@darkmetatron.de> wrote: > Am 15.09.2011 22:27, schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés: >> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Sebastian Beßler >> <sebast...@darkmetatron.de> wrote: >>> Am 15.09.2011 16:57, schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés: >>> >>>> with an initramfs you will be able to do anything, so it will make no >>>> sense to keep supporting initramfs-less systems. >>> >>> With "Microsoft Windows" you will be able to do anything, so it will >>> make no sense to keep supporting "Microsoft Windows"-less systems. >> >> Irrelevant: see the name on the list? It's called Gentoo Linux. I know >> you are trying to be witty, but only shows you are comparing apples >> and oranges. > > No, because first it was sarcasm and second it shows that your argument > is invalid. For near to every X there is some Y that can do what X can > do, but there are still many good and valid reasons to have X. So it > will make sense to keep supporting Y-less systems.
And you conveniently skipped my answer to your last two examples. No problem, here it goes again: "Last time I checked, neither GNOME nor Emacs demanded that Gentoo developers or users had to write a fork/replacement for a core component of the system. GNOME and Emacs just need ebuilds and adapting their configuration to Gentoo-isms. Testing and bug reporting, as usual. The only code needed is some small patches for both and around 200 lines of emacslisp for site-gentoo.el." Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
