Am 14.06.2014 03:24, schrieb Michael Scherer:
Le samedi 14 juin 2014 à 03:10 +0200, Reindl Harald a écrit :
>> Like they complained when up2date was replaced by yum ?
>> when zipper replaced whatever they used to have on *suse before ?
>> When pkgin replaced pkg_add on some of the BSD ?
>>
>> It happened in the past, and I do not remember seeing so much
>> complains..
>
> maybe people just have enough of repeated iterations every
> few months breaking compatibility left and right while it would
> have been possible to replace/improve things without breakage
You may not realize, but having someone who do not do your job telling
you how to do it is perceived as pretty annoying for a lot of people.
you may not realize but having someone deciding changes and what
you have to adopt on your setups is pretty annoying for a lot
of people called "users"
> as said repeatly in that thread:
>
> go ahead and propose to rename GNOME3 because it is no longer GNOME
Gnome is not a single software, it is a brand, and a collection of
software. Keeping the brand is likely the reason why it was not renamed.
But the part that did change visually, ie the windows manager and the
shell among others got renamed from whatever it was named to
gnome-shell. Same goes for rhytmbox, afaik.
that does not change the fact from the users point of view
it is no longer GNOME
> go ahead and propose to rename Linux because 3.15 is no longer
Linux 1.0
I fail to see how comparing changes in more than 15 years is relevant to
the current discussion. Nor even how anecdotal point of data is
relevant.
i fail to see the need of rename the well known package manager
> and that changes where much bigger than a fork of YUM renamed
> for no good reason especially in context of replace it
it was renamed to provides side by side installation among others. I am
sure that people would have been more upset if it was not done this way.
( as seen by the migration to gnome 3/kde 4 and people complaining
exactly on that ).
because both where a complete different product and not just
a new version, DNF is just a new version of YUM and that's
what major version numbers are for
So maybe you should propose to have dnf named yum 4.0, and then
since
that's a major version, we would be ok to change the behavior, command
lines switch, configuration and backend in a backward incompatible
way?
yes
Or even with the name yum and a clear indication, that's
something that
shouldn't be changed, in which case, yum 3 behavior should be kept,
which mean "keeping all the code and behavior until later" ?
jesus christ the code behind has *nothing* to do with the userinterface
and options - i have rewritten code of software i maintain for a decade
now multiple times and in the meantime there is for sure not a single
line the same as started 2003 without break user expectations