Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: [Pika-dev] Funding Drive

[Tom Lord]

    > From: Davide Libenzi <address@hidden>

    > I'm not following Arch discussions lately due a very limited
    > bandwidth (not network but time). But since you ask, I can tell
    > you the reasons that stopped my two pushes for Arch inside my
    > group (that has a mixed Linux / Windows developement hosts):

    > 1) The need to install Cygwin on Windows

Rumour has it that MS's recent "unix services" software provides an
alternative.    And, anyway, indeed -- it doesn't fully work on cygwin
yet although progress seems to be being made re that.

Windows has not historically been any kind of goal or priority though
it certainly seems to be within shooting range.

    > 2) The lack of an Arch server (they mean Arch protocol)

What a peculiar objection.  Are your evaluators just crazy or did they
miss something?   Arch doesn't require an "arch server" because it can
use any of a number of more venerable, stable servers which happen to
not be arch-specific.


    > They (GMs) perceive Arch as a "fragmented" solution that
    > requires different component to be installed/setup to have a
    > working system. I use it on Linux, so I don't care. But it seems
    > they do care. This besides re-training developers on a different
    > dev model, which is fine. I much prefer to talk to developers
    > than to general managers.

The GM you describe, who may or may not correspond to the GM you refer
to, doesn't sound -- well -- sane.


-t