Re: GNOME 2.26 module inclusion discussion heats up

["Jason D. Clinton" <me jasonclinton com>]

On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 8:46 AM, Lennart Poettering <mztabzr 0pointer de> wrote:
> Oh, is that so?
>
> This is some old Topaz mockup:
>
> http://farm1.static.flickr.com/20/70003494_668cfdc0dd.jpg

Your attitude is making it really hard to take sides with PA. Yes,
it's *the* only way forward at the moment. But you don't need to be a
dick about it. Why are you (and your supporters) resisting a fall back
mode so strongly?

BTW, I updated the proposal pages some time ago to indicate that PA is
essentially being proposed as a dependency as a result of this thread.
What about your attitude toward hardware compatibility lends to the
argument that we *should* depend on PA at this point?