I understand but that’s not how I think when I develop something.
I usually try to find a tool, library, program or functionality that is missing. If I find something that does that already, I use it. If it is missing something or is not perfect, I try to contribute to it.
I strongly believe in joining efforts to build better tools and that software quality can soffer from too high fragmentation.
Except doesn’t this replace their old tool? So, its not really fragmenting anything if its replacing an existing project.
Fragmentation isn’t great, but it can be beneficial in some cases too. I’ve contributed to a number of projects.
Over the last 20-30 years, I’ve seen plenty of projects fail, and new ones take over.
If you take a look at arts/eaudio and the other sound servers of 20 years ago. All failed, because Pulseaudio consolidated and killed them eventually. Now, Pulseaudio is on its way to getting killed by Pipewire. And one could argue its a waste of resources… but, the changeover is actually super awesome (for JACK)
One other good example of the fragmentation argument was Xfree86. Lots of people argued against Xorg at the time, and ultimately, Xfree86 died ages ago. If you asked me 20 years ago, I would have said KDE was dead, but now Gnome and KDE and carved out VERY different products, that suit very different people. Both are awesome in their own way
Everyone was freaking out when devFS got deprecated. But, udev was an amazing replacement
Linux is evolving FAR quicker than Windows or MAC (mac OS has barely changed in a decade). And, many ideas introduced in linux are stolen by Windows and Apple.
At the end of the day though, sometimes a rewrite is needed of things. What really matters is that it doesn’t fragment the desktop experience (and, it won’t in this case)
I understand but that’s not how I think when I develop something.
I usually try to find a tool, library, program or functionality that is missing. If I find something that does that already, I use it. If it is missing something or is not perfect, I try to contribute to it.
I strongly believe in joining efforts to build better tools and that software quality can soffer from too high fragmentation.
Except doesn’t this replace their old tool? So, its not really fragmenting anything if its replacing an existing project.
Fragmentation isn’t great, but it can be beneficial in some cases too. I’ve contributed to a number of projects.
Over the last 20-30 years, I’ve seen plenty of projects fail, and new ones take over.
If you take a look at arts/eaudio and the other sound servers of 20 years ago. All failed, because Pulseaudio consolidated and killed them eventually. Now, Pulseaudio is on its way to getting killed by Pipewire. And one could argue its a waste of resources… but, the changeover is actually super awesome (for JACK)
One other good example of the fragmentation argument was Xfree86. Lots of people argued against Xorg at the time, and ultimately, Xfree86 died ages ago. If you asked me 20 years ago, I would have said KDE was dead, but now Gnome and KDE and carved out VERY different products, that suit very different people. Both are awesome in their own way
Everyone was freaking out when devFS got deprecated. But, udev was an amazing replacement
Linux is evolving FAR quicker than Windows or MAC (mac OS has barely changed in a decade). And, many ideas introduced in linux are stolen by Windows and Apple.
At the end of the day though, sometimes a rewrite is needed of things. What really matters is that it doesn’t fragment the desktop experience (and, it won’t in this case)