Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Fedora proposing to remove X11 Gnome
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2025 07:31:00 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 63
Message-ID: <slrn100rn9k.3vb.rotflol2@geidiprime.bvh>
References: <oG5OP.1820195$BrX.647879@fx12.iad>
 <slrn100kcgb.ds7.ronb02NOSPAM@3020m.home>
 <slrn100kfa7.edd.rotflol2@geidiprime.bvh>
 <1irOP.851750$d51.585824@fx46.iad>
 <slrn100mumt.dkd.rotflol2@geidiprime.bvh> <vuh558$11toh$3@dont-email.me>
 <slrn100obf3.pd6.rotflol2@geidiprime.bvh>
 <slrn100oj38.81kf.ronb02NOSPAM@3020m.home>
 <slrn100pc7f.4e7.rotflol2@geidiprime.bvh>
 <slrn100rjti.bh86.ronb02NOSPAM@3020m.home>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2025 09:31:01 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="50652f0bc3c8752bc383cecc9877d0a9";
	logging-data="311047"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18BhrBBjha/zvm6sDaewleZbt9zXoWyZdc="
User-Agent: slrn/1.0.3 (Linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:yrG8khY1G2rgOD6Kdsso/Pit9h0=
Bytes: 4697

On 2025-04-27, RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2025-04-26, Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2025-04-26, RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 2025-04-26, Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2025-04-25, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 25 Apr 2025 12:06:53 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I understand the problems with X11, and supporting legacy, but you can't
>>>>>> just throw out decades of work and break it because its hard.
>>>>>
>>>>> Somebody has to come along and offer to do the work. If nobody does, then 
>>>>> yes, the existing developers are quite justified in saying “that’s not 
>>>>> worth it, let’s just drop it”.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But they ARE doing work.  They're creating new stuff that lack some
>>>> degree of compatibility with the old.  This is the problem, devs work on
>>>> what the want to work on, not what people need.
>>>>
>>>> In no one was willing to work on free software, that would make sense,
>>>> but people are working on reinventing the wheel again and again.  We
>>>> also had Mir.  TWO projects. Duplication.
>>>
>>> Kind of like Ubuntu trying to force Unity on everyone because "they knew 
>>> better." Or Gnome making huge changes in Gnome 3 because they knew better 
>>> than the user what the *should* want. That's basically why Linux Mint took 
>>> off. Mate and Cinnamon were what a LOT of users wanted, not Gnome 3 or 
>>> Unity.
>>>
>> What I was referring to problem, isn't limited to software.  It seems to
>> be a Millenial trait in general, or of younger people.  That is, they
>> want to work on what they want to work on, rather than what needs to be
>> done.  People seeing their work as an opportunity to do what they think
>> is best, rather than what *other* people need.  They think that "work"
>> is just a way they can actualise themselves.  Companies bend towards
>> this, catering to their needs, rather than the companies, or the
>> customers needs.  We, the users, need our software to work.  If you want
>> to work on it, your role is to stop our stuff breaking.
>>
>> Linus is "older school".  "Don't break userspace" is something hes
>> stated.
>>
>> As I said, I don't object to modernising the graphical system, but you
>> have to accept, have to accomodate the Unix Legacy.  If you don't want
>> that Legacy, work on a new OS, where you *can* just architecture
>> everything as you wish.
>
> Can't argue with you here. I guess I misunderstood your point. Sorry. I tend 
> to read too quickly sometimes.
>

Thats cool.  I think many people just have this belief that things
should be changed, reinvented.  I used to believe that too.  When I was
young, naive, I thought that "We've always done it this way" was a poor
reason to NOT change a system.  Now that I'm more experienced, and been
through many changes, implemented many, I'm more skeptical about
changing things which appear on the surface to not be optimal,
especially when you think you know better.

There are other things to consider than simply "is this new method more
efficient".  On paper, it can appear better, but the world doesn't work
according to 'on paper'.  Its messy, and changing crappy legacy X to
shiny new Y should be done with real, real care, and often, not at all.