[linux-elitists] Re: Yet another mozilla atrocity

Jeff Waugh jdub@perkypants.org
Thu Oct 9 02:02:29 PDT 2003


>   - "This is irrelevant and almost entirely orthogonal to application
>     usability."
>     In response to:  "Each piece of the OS puzzle that is built in
>     isolation adds a notch of complexity. Complexity kills
>     productivity."  This simply flies in the face of 40+ years of
>     software development experience.
>     http://zgp.org/pipermail/linux-elitists/2003-October/007535.html

Ha ha, interesting quoting there. You were talking about software
interoperability, not interface design. Sheesh.

>   - "you shouldn't have to muck around with fifty seven thousand anal
>     retentive configuration options to hit the ground running" In
>     response to: "well designed software should allow you to change the
>     defaults easily and consistently"
>     http://zgp.org/pipermail/linux-elitists/2003-October/007583.html

But dude... GNOME *does* allow you to change the defaults easily and
consistently - EXTREMELY easily and consistently, from a user or admin
perspective. That is an entirely independent issue to "please may I have
seven million preferences".

>   - Preferences are "mastubatory".
>     http://zgp.org/pipermail/linux-elitists/2003-October/007559.html

Noooo... The phrase used was "masturbatory preferences". Now, I'm not so
great with technical jargon for grammar, but you cannot argue that my
description of "masturbatory preferences" means that "all preferences are
masturbatory". What a silly thing to say. All along, I have been referring
to Havoc's essay and "balance", not "preferences are evil".

>   - Repeated mischaractization of "allowing editor-based configuration
>     changes" with "disallowing GUI-based configuration tools". (various)

Closer to "we provide tools for you to modify configuration without gui
tools, but see no need to provide them as text files that you can modify".
Martin has described a number of methods you can work on to do just that,
however.

> Again:  I don't see a mandate of "do it this way or none other".  I see
> "the way it is being done has major problems".
>
> I see an awful lot of dismissal without justification (not from all
> parties, but I've named names).
>
> I see flat refusal to address criticisms at all.

Um, dude, GConf has issues, but your criticisms aren't in the set of stuff
that we really care about (modifying stuff with $EDITOR). Sorry if that
breaks your heart, but that's just the way it is. You want one thing,
we're not interested in it. Tough biscuits.

> Havoc writes a phrase that's going to be popular with harried
> programmers.  Like a number of other topics he's opened his yap on, it's
> bullshit.  I call 'em like I see 'em.

In context, it is not bullshit. We have an extraordinarily open landscape
for clueless boofheads to provide reams of their "insight" and "wisdom" to
dedicated hackers who really know their stuff. It gets old very quickly.
It gets old extremely quickly in high profile Free Software projects, such
as GNOME and the kernel.

I sometimes feel that desktop projects are even worse off, because "any
idiot can design a user interface", whilst there is a fairly high barrier
to entry when it comes to kernel issues. Although, both sides of the fence
have the same "any idiot can post to your mailing list and tell you why
you're fucked in the head", so perhaps I'm just being sensitive to the
desktop space.

> Censorship is bullshit, Greg.

It's not censorship, it's noise reduction. Particularly when it comes to
flaming noise. If someone can't make their criticisms in a productive
manner, why bother listening to them, when there are fifty other people
who are ready and willing to say exactly the same thing (dude, seriously,
don't think you're the first to point out problems - relevant or not -
with GConf) without venom.

> If you're going to code, accept the compliments _and_ the complaints.
> If you're not interested in the conversation, don't participate.

And if you're going to complain, accept the fact that sometimes, your
point of view may not be accepted or prioritised the way you'd like it to
be. :-)

Sure, I have been a 'priss' to you in this thread, but given the
originating emails, are you surprised?

- Jeff

-- 
  So, "Jeffrey" seems to mean "the ineffectual, victimised guy in
  American movies" in four different languages.



More information about the linux-elitists mailing list