On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 03:32:42PM +0100, Jeremy Henty wrote:
On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 01:09:48PM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
... why would you want dillo1 and dillo2 at the same time.
I don't know. But when you start saying "No-one could *possibly* want to do that, so let's stop supporting it" then you are riding for a fall. Why make ourselves hostages to fortune? Why not make *sure* we avoid the problem rather than gambling that we've second-guessed our entire user base? Murphy's law applies, so play it safe unless there's a compelling reason not to.
You are adding the overhead of changing user behavior though. The claws backend might be a good reason, frankly it is the only one I see so far. Personally I consider the old version without at least the Xft patches to be plainly useless and everyone I heared talk about using dillo so far had similiar impressions. So changing the binary name (it is still dillo after all) seems just artifical change. The comparisions with libraries doesn't apply. Joerg