Development quote of the week

The thing is, the "willing to maintain stuff in the area of their interest" applies to upstream software authors just as much as it applies to distribution packagers. Supporting/maintaining "choice" carries a not-inconsiderable burden in of itself, and speaking of GNOME specifically, the detractors are generally opposed to the entire UX paradigm that the GNOME folks are working towards; simultaneously supporting the "old" and "new" stuff is a considerable burden that they're simply not willing (or even able) to undertake.

Putting on my own "upstream free software maintainer" hat, I've actively removed multiple complex features because they no longer fit with how I saw the problem domain evolving, and keeping those features would have greatly increased the effort necessary to develop the improvements I saw as necessary. To date, nobody has complained, though I suspect that's more due to a miniscule userbase than my own prescience.

> I hope that makes my position more understood. (understandably? I'm not a native English writer. ;-))

"clear" is probably a better word to use in this context, but yes, your explanation was quite beneficial, and I believe we are in general agreement.

(BTW, I'm sure I've directly benefited from your TeX & CTAN work. Thank you!)