Post 9nlDaMeT5ZZeR0UmXI by ohyran@fosstodon.org
(DIR) More posts by ohyran@fosstodon.org
(DIR) Post #9nlBWgRfM5mikxcmZ6 by dthompson@toot.cat
2019-10-09T20:16:13Z
1 likes, 2 repeats
imagine if gnu was a carefully curated set of software that mutually benefit each other instead of a hodge podge of whatever people offer up, some of which is redundant. like how many common lisp implementations does one project need?
(DIR) Post #9nlBexOuCPONexHJz6 by masterofthetiger@theres.life
2019-10-09T20:27:28Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@dthompsonYou need no less than 6 per project.
(DIR) Post #9nlBx2VjwDwCim66ls by dthompson@toot.cat
2019-10-09T20:30:46Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@masterofthetiger ah yes, Greenspun's 11th rule:Any sufficiently complicated free software collection contains at least six bug-ridden, slow implementations of Common Lisp.
(DIR) Post #9nlDaMeT5ZZeR0UmXI by ohyran@fosstodon.org
2019-10-09T20:48:59Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@dthompson then it would most probably be dead a long time ago.The wealth of options, the hodgepodge and the mess didn't exactly turn up by lacking something, it is because it had something necessary for its own survival. A spread of development based on personal needs and wants.I've heard this "they should tell people to do this instead" in a lot of projects where that very method of handling contribution wouldn't improve contribution, it would kill it.
(DIR) Post #9nlKyfxPf7QKwGtdYW by vancha@fosstodon.org
2019-10-09T22:11:46Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ohyran @dthompson this sounds almost obvious, if the project didn't develop the way it did, it would be like it is now. There's probably other projects that are more focused, and where the developers work more in unison. But now we have all these amazing apps, where some work better than others, but the best ideas end up being either used and improved, or forked and changed. This turns out to be beneficial for gnome at least :)