[argyllcms] Re: More on instrument access
- From: "Nicolas Mailhot" <nicolas.mailhot@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 10:06:29 +0100 (CET)
Le Mar 8 janvier 2008 06:16, Graeme Gill a écrit :
>
> This page has some interesting observations that parallel
> what I see:
>
> <http://autopackage.org/faq.html?PHPSESSID=d25dcaf01b9e82a2137c69387b12c8ae#3_1>
The autopackage group disagrees with most every distribution out there
and has unsurprisingly seen little traction (be it in users or
developpers) in all the years it existed. Don't go there it's not been
a huge market success (IIRC it predates Ubuntu, and got from nowhere
to nowhere in more time Ubuntu got from nowhere to high visibility)
> The spirit for Linux and Distro developers to take this in is
> as "valuable feed back from a customer",
You're not a customer. You want to be a customer you pay for a
contract in a perimeter like RHEL. And even there there are limits to
what Red Hat and friends are willing to accept. The huge experience
Red Hat has with paying partners wanting to do stuff the Windows way,
and all the costly disasters that followed, has only resulted in
increasing refusal to do many things no matter how much the partner
paid, and the drive to refuse any compromise in Fedora (that serves as
RHEL base).
You're a "community contributor". That means the system gets as good
as you make it, as long as you respect the conventions the bulk of the
other community contributors adopted.
> It's a poor fallback really, as people understandably don't want
> to turn their world upside-down just to run a single application.
Then why do you want them to turn their world upside-down by having
your app follow different conventions than the rest of their system ?
--
Nicolas Mailhot
Other related posts:
