On Fri, 2014-06-13 at 15:15 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 13.06.2014 15:03, schrieb drago01:
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 2:58 PM, Reindl Harald <h.reindl(a)thelounge.net>
wrote:
>>
>> Am 13.06.2014 14:53, schrieb Jan Zelený:
>>> That being said, the reason for not renaming dnf to yum is that renaming
this
>>> project to yum will do nothing else than to confuse its users, as they will
>>> think this is still yum and they should expect from dnf it what they
expected
>>> from yum. They should not. And dnf is not yum, I'm really sorry if you
think
>>> it is.
>>
>> the user expects that anyways if you replace something he
>> did not asked for replace it and what just worked for him
>
> Well there are different levels of "works" i.e just because something
works that
> something does not have to be the best possible implementation of
> "something" ...
close your eyes for 2 seconds to face how that bothers
the user which is the bigot justification for the rename
do you seriously explain me it's wrong that Linux still
is called Linux or even that the implementation of 3.15
has anything common with Linux 1.0?
> Horses worked too but at some point we decided that cars work better
> and moved on
that's childish
a horse and a car are completly different things
yum and dnf are not
I think you are failing to undertstand the concept of "perspective".
The example is actually perfectly fitting.
Why do you care if your "transport" is a horse or a car ? You should
just call it "tranmsport", right ?
Anyway I think we should stop with this bikeshedding. The people write
the code decided to call it DNF, and it is their right to do so, it is
their project and they decided they want a new identity to go with it.
To help the transition they are making it so that if you call "yum" it
still works, and this should keep old cranky users happy. Be happy like
that.
Simo.
--
Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York