lfs65 at cruziero.com
Wed Mar 9 01:52:49 PST 2016
> From: Paul Rogers <paulgrogers at fastmail.fm>
> Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2016 15:27:09 -0800
> Subject: Re: [blfs-support] Toolkits
> > I was questioning your requirements. The mention of firefox and
> > lightweight seemed to be a contradiction to me.
> Not knowing anything about what sites I have to visit, what they
> support, what I have to do there, rather than answer my question
> about toolkits, you decided something else would work better for me
> than firefox? What is this fascination with requiring firefox? I
> don't get it.
> In the first place, even if it were a contradiction, just because I have
> to have firefox has no relevance for making the rest of the system light
> and efficient. If one piece of the system doesn't meet some arbitrary
> standard, then the whole thing is ruined and nothing should be done to
> make any of it right? Nonsense.
> What ever happened to "Your system, your rules"? "We don't like your
> rules," is it? So is it now we have to answer to some other rules to
> get a straightforward answer to a question about the tradeoffs for
> managing toolkits in some efficient for the time being? From what I've
> seen, even GTK3 is a headache, breaking things from release to release.
Paul, I think that this has spiralled a little bit: ISTM that there was
an initial sidelight-remark apparent conflation of lightweight-DE with
lightweight-programs; which of course is a not necessarily true (er,
'opposite-of-')dichotomy; e.g. & fwiw, on linux when using x, I use twm,
but all sorts of 'heavyweight' programs (as/when ~needed).
Yes, it can be irritating to anyone at times to get an apparently
oblique/indirect/points-switching/derailing reply. But at least
sometimes, those can be useful in viewing the situation from a different
angle: and it can be a bit self-defeating - in the central objective of
getting helpful input - to simply put the foot down and 'require' people
More information about the blfs-support