Call for testing: LightDM

Bryce Harrington bryce at
Wed Jun 8 01:58:38 UTC 2011

On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 11:03:12AM +0100, Matthew East wrote:
> On 7 June 2011 10:02, Alan Bell <alanbell at> wrote:
> > yeah, I would very much hope that lightdm does not introduce more
> > accessibility regressions.
> I'm taking this opportunity to post a link to this comment on the
> proposed switch to lightDM from Matthew Garrett, in case people
> reading here haven't seen it, it seems relevant to this discussion and
> I haven't seen it mentioned before.
> It also briefly discusses impact on accessibility, albeit without
> going into detail.

tl;dr version: "Every wart is earned in the process of fixing a bug;
those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it, etc."  Fairly bog
standard rant against doing something new.

Yeah, 'lightweight' does tend to be used as a euphemism for 'incomplete'
far too often; I'm onboard with that.  Sort of like using 'cheap' to
describe a product or 'randomly' in a bug description.  But come now,
this is gdm we're talking about...

I remember when Firefox first came out, there were some who felt that
starting over from scratch after so much effort had gone into creating
the Mozilla codebase was a mistake.  Mozilla had a built-in HTML editor,
and a calendar and email reader and lots more.  Firefox did so much
*less* than Mozilla.  But who still uses Mozilla?


Why bother having a baby, when there are plenty of fully grown homeless
people available at your local freeway onramp?

More information about the ubuntu-desktop mailing list