Ralf Mardorf schreef op 09-12-2017 9:19:
PS: Don't get me wrong Xen, I get your point and without doubts you are
"Kohlhaas", as I'm, too.
I am pretty sure that if the upstream devs would have taken a more
considerate approach, businesses would actually have been willing to
fund security maintenance, since it would have cost them much less than
making the transition.
So yes I believe your Kohlhaas analogy is correct (more so than, or
easier to understand, than Don Quixotte, (which I have partly read)) but
I think Kohlhaas was actually pretty sympathetic ;-).
The wikipedia article phrases it as if Kohlhaas went against public
opinion but apparently it was more a case of corruption at the top.
Which is, of course, also analogous here: do people *really* agree, or
do they just try to avoid trouble?
The topic of my message was whether or not Ubuntu opposed this evolution
in any way or not.
I also wanted to say here: The North Koreans (when warning about border
trespassings) say "Value a happy life".
Which is a rather friendly way to say : stay out of trouble (for your
own good) ;-).
But anyway.
Ubuntu existed for a long time, could have opposed Python 3, apparently
is not doing so, now complains that they have no choice but to go along,
when they have supported this evolution all along.
That's the only thing I was pointing to: don't support the whole
evolution and then claim you are a victim of it.
Arch Linux was one of the first distributions to officially move to
Python 3.
--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
