On Fri, 2009-02-06 at 09:57 -0500, Dimi Paun wrote: > Look: if a proposal is forwarded to change dubious defaults you > are told to come back with a rigorous scientific usability study > showing X and Y. This isn't a usability argument. It's a power saving argument. The main *counter* argument seems to be usability. > However, if someone from Red Hat wakes up one morning and decides > to change a default that will affect _everybody_ using a computer, > they do it without a moment's notice. That's the privilege of being an upstream developer. Cry some more. > And we are supposed to swallow > it as such because someone came up with a *totally* unsupported > number of trees saved(1). No, it's because someone directly measured a reduction in power usage. Quite scientific, really. > 2. Yes, it's political, based on the incorrect assumption that > we're gonna save trees. No, the argument only got wrapped in plolitics because some people seem to think that's a good idea. And you're only continuing it.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
