[linux-elitists] Re: Yet another mozilla atrocity

Jesse Hutton jhutton@eden.rutgers.edu
Tue Oct 14 06:03:03 PDT 2003

On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Rick Moen wrote:
> What is it with you clowns?  I'm sorry, but the maligning of my motives
> is ridiculous and mildly offensive in a "well, my low opinion has just
> been justified" sort of fashion.

I'm not trying to imply any such low opinion. I am trying to understand
what all the hoopla is about and all this sidestepping and giving of
canned responses isn't helping.

> > The point is that Abiword programmers *chose* to use the gconf system.
> > You would like to blame Gnome, as if they were the evil, totalitarian
> > rulers who have forced them to use this system. But, you don't blame
> > the Abiword people at all? Come on!
> Excuse me, but you seem to have confused me with someone who (1)
> specifically dislikes GConf,


 as opposed to disliking the information
> void facing people looking for explanations and documentation in the
> usual places, and (2) is concerned with GNOME.  (I have now clarified
> several times, to people who have demonstrated clue-resistance, that my
> interest is limited to Galeon, gnumeric, and AbiWord.)

and their adopted system of configuration? Ie, GConf?

> So, you seem to have fallen to the non-sequitur disease affecting
> several other posters of seemingly similar views.  Please let us know
> when you get better.

I'm afraid you'll have to tell me when I get better, since you seem to be
one of the experts at recognizing this maladie.

> > I hereby propose that the word "non-sequitur" be banned from this list.
> I'm hereby proposing that you take measures to improve your reading
> comprehension.

Uhhhh...<drool drips down on keyboard>

> > You're not complaining that GConf sucks?
> I'm hereby proposing that you take measures to _greatly_ improve your
> reading comprehension.

Errr, you did just write "I was venting frustration at its utter
*suckitude* when examined from that perspective." (emphasis mine)

Look, I completely agree that GConf should be documented, *especially*
since it breaks longtime unix conventions. I expect that that problem
will be solved relatively soon, however, and it certainly wasn't the crux
of the discussion up further in this thread, which was specifically
addressing 1) aspects of it's design (database format, XML, etc), 2) what
the goals of GConf are in terms of usability, and 3) what requirements
GConf's opponents (the "old-fogeys") place upon a configuration system. I
apologize if I misinterpreted your position in that context (and got a
little bit too bold with the keyboard -- which I attribute largely to the
Dogfish Head beer I was consuming -- I'm generally not trollish).

I do think all this "non-sequitur" crap is utterly pedantic, and just a
way of sidestepping the argument.

(If you're into wasting more time and bandwidth, you could try to explain
and justify your claim of non-sequiturness if it's anything more than "I
wasn't saying GConf is bad, just that it sucks that it's undocumented and
unusable for me." Reading comprehension deficiencies aside, I have a
degree in Linguistics and I'm quite accustomed to thinking about
language. Perhaps more importantly in this case, I am a native speaker of
English and can use a dictionary as well, so I'll manage.)


More information about the linux-elitists mailing list