[linux-elitists] Re: Yet another mozilla atrocity
Karsten M. Self
Mon Oct 13 17:09:10 PDT 2003
on Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 01:13:38PM -0700, Greg KH (email@example.com) wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 09:15:33AM +0100, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> > on Wed, Oct 08, 2003 at 12:10:40PM -0700, Greg KH (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote:
> > > In otherwords, "put up or shut up" :)
> > This I'm going to take an extreme exception to.
> <weird comparison to my phrase and pissing other people off and getting
> kicked off of mailing lists snipped>
I may be confusing you with members of a strange techno-personality
cult, in which case my apologies. The snipped sections referenced above
mapply specifically to this. People so wrapped up in their particular
project or solution that they are blind, or blinded in rage, by
criticisms. It's something I've encountered a few times recently, and
it's something I'm getting rather sensitive to.
Having posting privileges pulled for discussing reasonable technical
issues of software or systems is censorship. Fortunately, the axis of
evasion doesn't control l-e.
> > Censorship is bullshit, Greg.
> I'm not saying stop talking. Just don't keep talking and not
> producing any valid code, and expect anyone to take you seriously.
While I can see the frustrations here, I still disagree with this
I suppose we should all just shut up over, say, any potential problems
with legacy MS Windows or other Microsoft products? Or does this
dictum only apply to free software projects.
> You can keep talking all you want, just don't get pissy if no one
> implements your ideas.
I recognize the limits of my advocacy. However, if I present a catalog
of issues with software, don't see a compelling reason for their being
consider invalid, *and* see the developers responsible for the related
projects dismiss them out of hand, I'm going to start drawing some
conclusions. In this case: GNOME development seems to be in low orbit
around an extrasolar planet. Way out of touch with reality, and no
interest in phoning home. I'll adjust my own usage, software interests,
and advocacy accordingly. And I won't waste my time identifying further
issues with same software if it's clear the developers aren't listening
and don't care.
> > If you're going to code, accept the compliments _and_ the complaints.
> Heh, like I don't know how to take complaints. You haven't seen my
> inbox over the years. Nothing's worse than a mad user who's new-fangled
> USB device doesn't work on Linux and they decide to take it out on a
> unsuspecting kernel developer who had nothing to do with the fact that
> the manufacturer is a git.
I believe this is about the third time I've made the point: the
distinction that needs to be made is not between coders and non-coders,
but between people who can and cannot contribute to software design and
> > If you're not interested in the conversation, don't participate.
> I was interested in the conversation, don't tell me not to participate.
> Hey, look, you're advocating censorship! :)
I'm advocating people who are tired of listening to stuff they've heard
before, and know to be stupid, to simply duck out.
There are irresolvable disputes, in which someone needs to simply make
a design decision and punt. I'm not convinced that the current
discussion is one.
The proper response in such cases is to say "we discussed this here
<URL>, we are doing it this way, and I'm not discussing it further.
Incidentally, posting such frequently iterated content is among the
reasons I wrote the rant-o-matic. If I find myself repeating answers, I
take a reasonable version of the response, edit it lightly, and add it
to the archive. Then it's "rant topic-foo", and my canned response is
> Merely pointing out the fact that open source projects do not
> generally enjoy users yapping on and on about what should be done,
There seems to be genuine disagreement in the current case (GNOME &
gconf) that this is what's being done. Given the experience and
diversity of viewpoints present on this list, I'd call your comments a
mischaracterization of the discussion.
Karsten M. Self <email@example.com> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
What Part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
Data corrupts. Absolute data corrupts absolutely.
-- Ed Self's corollary of Atkinson's Law.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://allium.zgp.org/pipermail/linux-elitists/attachments/20031014/6b4d4dfa/attachment.pgp
More information about the linux-elitists