I think both are worthy of criticism. No project out there is able to separate technical and social concerns, any more than you can separate the logical and emotional parts of a person. Every project has social and technical standards. It's the pure focusing on one or another that skews peoples values on making software.
I am against the solution because it requires yet more environment variables that need setting if you don't want a bunch of Windows-looking folders in your $HOME.
There are a great many things 'well-intentioned' in this world. I'm simply less convinced and more aloof to efforts that steer the way we compute.
The article and discussion have already shown that even proponents or adherants to XDG can't decide where things go. Data and cache get used interchangeably, and if I or a group of hackers want to improve or influence the standard, we will be stopped by the big desktop makers.
Usually, adopting standards comes with great benefits for everyone. The big guns win control if we capitulate to their way of building software.
I honestly see little reason we can't have competing 'standards' on file paths. That practice would encourage software to simply make its config path changeable at runtime.
There are too many people trying to turn GNU/Linux into one monolithic thing that's the same for everyone, and that defeats the moral point of free software. If I was required to follow these standards to get my software into a distro, I'd have moved on a long time ago.
The 'problem' with freedom is it lets you keep the pieces if things break. What you do with the pieces -- lean to XDG, switch OSes, make your own hierarchy -- is up to you.
Maybe the culture and community needs to be forked. There's clearly a group of hackers that loves bureaucracy and consensus before code is written, and another that doesn't really care for either of those things.
If others choose to look solely at the technical, then they will be led on like fools by the socially-targeting people, who aren't just looking to solve technical problems.
So what was the point of claiming I have no problem with the solution when I've not communicated that?
Wrt point 3, it's how one is supposed to act while in a group. You don't know them outside of the group, and it's none of your business what they do outside of the group. Some may claim that's overly tolerant, but in my opinion if a bigot behaves while working, it shows they know their ideas are unpopular and they have the tact and decorum to not bring it up. How they act outside the group is not up to the group.
I am against the solution because it requires yet more environment variables that need setting if you don't want a bunch of Windows-looking folders in your $HOME.
There are a great many things 'well-intentioned' in this world. I'm simply less convinced and more aloof to efforts that steer the way we compute.
The article and discussion have already shown that even proponents or adherants to XDG can't decide where things go. Data and cache get used interchangeably, and if I or a group of hackers want to improve or influence the standard, we will be stopped by the big desktop makers.
Usually, adopting standards comes with great benefits for everyone. The big guns win control if we capitulate to their way of building software.
I honestly see little reason we can't have competing 'standards' on file paths. That practice would encourage software to simply make its config path changeable at runtime.
There are too many people trying to turn GNU/Linux into one monolithic thing that's the same for everyone, and that defeats the moral point of free software. If I was required to follow these standards to get my software into a distro, I'd have moved on a long time ago.
The 'problem' with freedom is it lets you keep the pieces if things break. What you do with the pieces -- lean to XDG, switch OSes, make your own hierarchy -- is up to you.
Maybe the culture and community needs to be forked. There's clearly a group of hackers that loves bureaucracy and consensus before code is written, and another that doesn't really care for either of those things.
If others choose to look solely at the technical, then they will be led on like fools by the socially-targeting people, who aren't just looking to solve technical problems.
So what was the point of claiming I have no problem with the solution when I've not communicated that?
Wrt point 3, it's how one is supposed to act while in a group. You don't know them outside of the group, and it's none of your business what they do outside of the group. Some may claim that's overly tolerant, but in my opinion if a bigot behaves while working, it shows they know their ideas are unpopular and they have the tact and decorum to not bring it up. How they act outside the group is not up to the group.