[linux-elitists] Re: GNOME > you
Sun Jan 4 09:20:59 PST 2004
<quote who="Lance Simmons">
> You originally sounded to me (hence to at least two people) like you
> intended to draw a clear and sharp distinction between how and what, the
> sort of distinction that could withstand close scrutiny. This
> misunderstanding may just be a matter of the different expectations
> people bring to a conversation. I was hoping to understand what
> objective evidence supports your claims about the objective superiority
> of GNOME.
Whoa, hold on, "objective superiority of GNOME"? Compared to what? I'm not
sure I'm even remotely interested in debating it on those terms. I don't
think that's useful *at all*.
> > So, I'm not sure your disagreement with "[my] objective distinction
> > between how and what" is really warranted. I don't think that's what
> > I'm explaining here at all. It's about approach, technical needs, soft
> > needs, and level of care-factor. I guess that's why I'm surprised at
> > your aggressive pursuit of this point - these aren't really abstract
> > concepts.
> No, they are really vague concepts. (Is it "level-of-care factor" or
> "level of care-factor"
care-factor, sorry, a colloquialism.
> and what would either of these things be, anyway?) Because they are not
> precise, such concepts are not appropriate for framing your claims to
> objective superiority. It sounds to me like Jeremy wants to get you to
> explain yourself using concepts that have objective content so that we on
> the list can understand what evidence there is to support your claims.
> Jeremy's comments about science and the history of science (which has its
> shadow, the history of group-think) strike me as right on target.
Well, guide me along and I'll try to help you out, but I'm not sure I have
much interest in the "objective superiority" argument.
linux.conf.au 2004: Adelaide, Australia http://lca2004.linux.org.au/
I don't know whose brain child it was, but it was quite an ugly child.
More information about the linux-elitists