On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 2:36 PM, Dimi Paun <dimi@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > And you know what? We *have* hard numbers! We know quite well the > percentage of people using Windows and MacOSX. It is close to 95%. Every > time I pointed that out it was completely ignored. I'm seeing the same argumentation being made in upstream desktop-devel-list discussions back in December 2005. Do you expect the same arguments to be more persuasive now? I don't think that's a rational thing to expect. Honestly I'm not seeing anything new in terms of argument that I can't find in a previous round of upstream discussion going as far back as 2005 if not earlier, in the concerns expressed in the original discussion from 2002 on nautilus-list. No one here asked Mark to bring this up...again. No one here asked Mark to make the same arguments...again. Noone here has told him or you to do exactly the same things which have failed to bring change in the past. But that's exactly what you are doing. These exact same arguments were used in upstream discussion in 2005. There is a long history here, the approach you are taking hasn't worked in the past. If you are unwilling to try a different approach and instead choose to view suggestions as to different approaches to take as being condescending and ludicrous instead of helpful, then that's your decision. But I will say that I think you are behaving irrationally, in your continued fervent support of your rational argument as the only argument worth supporting. Its just not rational to expect a different outcome to the discussion than we have seen before unless a new approach is taken. There's nothing new here in terms of information or thought. It's simply not enough for you to believe that your arguments are sufficient. History shows these arguments aren't connecting and are not persuasive. Keep the objective in mind. The goal is not to be right, you are not winning points for being rational or 'tight' in your argument making. The goal is to persuade others to make a change you desire. Hammering away at them with an argument that has been used repeatedly for years now, and has so far been unpersuasive, is not going to achieve the goal. > > I have presented a fairly tight argument why the default was not chosen > wisely. Did I receive *one* decent counter argument? Stuff along the > lines of "Come back with several solid usability studies" is just > ludicrous. Dimi, words like 'ludicrous' could be considered representative of a condescending attitude. Be wary of emotive speech like that. As a proponent of rational thought, help others discuss this rationally by tempering your own speech so as to avoid baiting emotional outbursts from others. -jef -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
