* Theo de Raadt wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 12:21 PM, Marc Balmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > * Ian Darwin wrote: > > > > >> Gypsy was designed to fix "the numerous design flaws found in GPSD". > > >> These are compiled at http://gypsy.freedesktop.org/why-not-gpsd.html. > > > > > > So how does this compare to gpsd for real applications? I am asking > > > since the main gpsd developer is also an OpenBSD developer, and maybe > > > there are ways to fix the problems in gpsd? > > > > > > Oh, and I find this rude. > > > > DBUS is more crap I don't need or want on my machines, the regular > > gpsd serves my needs very well. I'm sure I could write a > > "why-not-dbus-gypsy.html" page, but I can't be arsed. I'm surprised > > that I'm even taking the time to reply to this. > > > > If it works, let them co-exist. GPSD does have some kind of DBUS > > support... but I have no use for it so I can't say how well it works. > > What are you saying? I want to understand this very clearly. > > Are you two saying no to a new package? Or what is this fight > about?
I can only speak for myself: I am in no way objecting to this to go in. I was only commenting. Users should make the choice which GPS package they use, not us, not me. Nevertheless I think it is ok to post comments. > > Or do the little words twist your panties? -- Marc Balmer, Micro Systems, Wiesendamm 2a, Postfach, CH-4019 Basel, Switzerland http://www.msys.ch/ http://www.vnode.ch/ "In God we trust, in C we code."
