[PD-dev] updating 'puredata' package to 0.42.5

[Mathieu Bouchard]

On Sat, 21 Nov 2009, Chris McCormick wrote:
> Ok, I'll answer your question as if you'd asked it like this: "Why would you
> like the option of running pd-vanilla?" Rather than the front-loaded question
> you asked me.

What does «front-loaded» mean here??

> 1. Pd is minimal whilst pd-extended is maximal. Hans has stated on list 
> that he would like to include as many externals as possible in the 
> distribution. I think this is a bad architectural decision which leads 
> to complexity and bugs. I would rather run something which has an 
> architecture I agree with.

How to make pd-extended super stable:

1. download pd-extended
2. install pd-extended
3. delete .pdsettings
4. done

that way you don't get any of the annoying externals.

> There are many things which Miller has not implemented which I wish he 
> had, but there are far fewer things that he has implemented which I wish 
> he hadn't.

It's not that: there are possibly many features that one wish hadn't been 
implemented, but few of them really are impediments and even fewer are 
showstoppers or close to (i'm not talking about pd in particular).

> This may be outweiged down the track by evolutionary pressure, since 
> pd-extended will be subjected to a lot more pressure than Pd will be, 
> because Pd basically has a sole maintainer.

You are confusing pressure and resistance.

> 4. I often want to run Pd on constrained devices and in constrained 
> places. Getting it to do so is hard enough without the bloat that 
> pd-extended experiences. What if I want to apt-get install Pd onto my 
> router/gumstix/phone with an ARM based processor with 8MB of flash 
> memory?

What if I want to apt-get install Pd onto my toaster / microwave-oven / 
Apple IIc or BBC-Micro ?

If you want that to happen, you may be a candidate for maintaining the 
«puredata» package in Debian!

> Of course, Free and Open Source Software is also about choice,

Whose choice of what?

You can choose to run the programme, choose to study how the programme 
works, choose to modify the programme to do whatever you want, choose to 
redistribute the programme, and choose to fork the project. What else do 
you want to choose about?

> and so it's always good to give users the choices they would like.

There's nothing in the Free Software Definition that says anything like 
volunteers who happen to be served by users have to volunteer extra time 
to provide the users with the choices they like, for free.

> I shouldn't even have to justify my own preference for running 
> pd-vanilla to you,

Well, why are you replying to me? That's because you think it's worth it.

> beyond saying "having pd-vanilla is a useful feature for me, and I would 
> appreciate it if it was available to me as a choice."

The issue is not whether you prefer pd-vanilla or whether you think 
pd-vanilla shall be the default in such a manner that all questions have 
to be biased in favour of pd-vanilla. The question is whether HCS would 
take on the job of maintaining the debian package for it.

> "It works for me," is the worst kind of programmer mentality.

What about the worst kinds of user mentality? (while we are at separating 
users and programmers again...)

  _ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ...
| Mathieu Bouchard, Montréal, Québec. téléphone: +1.514.383.3801