| |||||||||||||
such nastiness.such nastiness.Posted Jul 29, 2012 14:59 UTC (Sun) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630)In reply to: such nastiness. by Company Parent article: Otte: staring into the abyss
You provide every feature that any user would want and you keep it that way forever No, not at all. You don't attempt to provide every feature that any user would want. However, removing existing features is very bad and should only be done after extremely serious consideration and only if it results in a very substantial code cleanup or other benefit.
(Log in to post comments)
such nastiness. Posted Jul 29, 2012 22:54 UTC (Sun) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link]
cf what someone else said about Linus and linux ...
And yes I know linux has very recently deleted a large chunk of functionality BUT ... the rationale was very sensible. "Most of this stuff seems to have been broken for quite a while. If nobody can be bothered to fix it, why are we keeping it?".
As someone (same someone?) said "don't delete stuff that users care about" - obviously nobody cares about the stuff that's gone.
Cheers,
such nastiness. Posted Jul 30, 2012 8:26 UTC (Mon) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Also "the hardware's never been available for systems built in the last decade and a half, since it is MCA-only, and we are not running a computer museum". Nobody is really going to want to Linux 3.5 on an IBM PS/2.
such nastiness. Posted Jul 30, 2012 13:19 UTC (Mon) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link] Removing support for obsolete hardware is fine; that's a valid reason to remove features. Removing support for something in a desktop environment "just because" is not a good reason.
such nastiness. Posted Jul 31, 2012 22:41 UTC (Tue) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Speaking as a user of both Trinity and Emacs ('no features removed since 1976, except for old-style backquote'), I completely agree!
|
|||||||||||||