On Mon, 2012-07-09 at 12:12 -0600, Christopher A. Williams wrote: > On Mon, 2012-07-09 at 12:49 -0500, David Lehman wrote: > > On Mon, 2012-07-09 at 11:23 -0600, Christopher A. Williams wrote: > > > On Mon, 2012-07-09 at 11:52 -0500, David Lehman wrote: > > > > > Exactly what is so bad with "that practice" (of installing both desktops) as to "frown upon it"? > > > > > > > > > > I am a KDE user and yet I still install Gnome on my machine. Exactly what crime do I commit? > > > > > > > > Only being unwilling to choose a camp. Not even a crime, really. > > > > > > And choosing a camp is good? Not choosing a camp or deciding to remain > > > flexible is bad? Not really. > > > > I didn't say flexible is bad. What I am saying is that flexible is > > _hard_ (for those of us doing the work). Hard is not necessarily bad, > > either, but at some point one must begin to choose one's battles. > > So... Lots of stuff is hard. But it's also worth it. We don't achieve > excellence by taking the simple route. I do really hard stuff both in my > job and on my own time as a volunteer most every day. > > > > > > I am another _real_ data point showing that Fedora users actually do that (that = install both > > > > > desktops to have access to packages from both of them). > > > > > > > > There are plenty of very vocal minority groups here. > > > > > > Please show researched statistics to support your claim and implication > > > that this is a minority group. I question and doubt you actually have > > > statistics on any of these groups. > > > > Too busy trying to actually do work, but thanks for offering to help. > > Nice try. I didn't offer to help on this one. You alleged something as a > point without anything to back it up. I just asked you to back up what > you're saying. If you can't do that, it's not my problem. It just means > I'm winning on this part of the argument. I was being sarcastic about you offering to help. > > > > > I can tell you from personal experience that Fedora has both real and > > > > imaginary idiots. Just kidding. We have two opposing groups of users: > > > > Those who think the installer should have a knob for whatever their > > > > obscure pet option is, and those who believe it should be a > > > > highly-polished, streamlined interface along the lines of MacOS. These > > > > are fundamentally in opposition and it is impossible to please both > > > > camps entirely. > > > > > > ...Wow - Talk about spin. Only something that's highly polished and > > > streamlined like MacOS...? > > > > I don't have time to sit with you all day picking the fly shit out of > > the pepper. You should stop making assumptions and take a look at the UI > > before continuing to try and dictate its design from afar. > > Must be getting you you since you're now resorting to ...umm "colorful" > language. > > I guess you missed the part where I have been contributing in one way or > another to Fedora since its start (and RHL before that). While I'm not a > coder, I do understand a lot more about this than you want to imply. > > > > > > Simple is not a requirement for highly polished, and neither simple nor > > > streamlined should prevent flexibility in options. Besides, if you > > > really want to emulate MacOS like that, why not just go buy a Mac? > > > > > > I would submit there is a group who wants something highly polished, > > > with flexibility and the ability to easily control finer points of the > > > process along the way. None of these traits necessarily precludes the > > > others. Is that really too much to ask for? > > > > No, of course not. We'll attain UI perfection while simultaneously > > arguing with you about it. Have you even looked at the UI we're working > > on? Read the blog posts about what we're doing? > > ...Well, actually... Yes I have, and I keep up on things quite > regularly. I just don't always chime in on things unless I clearly see > something truly problematic and have the cycles to engage on it. > > > Just because I failed to spoonfeed you the entire essence of several > > man-years of work in a short email doesn't mean you're ahead of the game > > here. > > Only several man-years? I was in Redomond a couple of weeks ago review > just the update to System Center 2012 and Hyper-V Windows Server 2008 (I > design and build cloud infrastructure by trade leading a practice for a > Fortune 500 company). Microsoft is quite proud of that they have more > than 6,000 man-years of work in the update to System Center 2012 > alone... You both have reason to be proud. > > > > > > "Applications programming is a race between software engineers, who strive to produce idiot-proof > > > > > programs, and the universe which strives to produce bigger idiots. So far the Universe is winning." > > > > > > > > > > Do you really strive to produce more and better idiots? > > > > > > > > We strive to provide an environment in which the idiots can play in > > > > relative safety (the graphical installer) while also offering an > > > > alternative environment for the geniuses to do whatever crazy thing they > > > > think they need to do (kickstart). > > > > > > ...This is evidence of another misconception and misguided strategy > > > (albeit an honest one): We need to save the novice users from > > > themselves, while letting "geniuses" hack kickstart files. This is > > > pitting one extreme vs. another in a situation where neither is > > > realistically encountered. Just because I might be a genius doesn't mean > > > I should be required to hack kickstart files (although the choice to do > > > so should remain available at my own risk). > > > > > > Why not instead have a good set of defaults in the installer, with a > > > "Don't try this at home unless you're a professional" button to open up > > > options for those who choose to do so, and then highly polish the whole > > > thing. Is that just too much to ask despite that reasonably good > > > versions of such have been successfully accomplished in the past? > > > > Who said we wouldn't be using sane defaults and providing _some_ level > > of opt-in advanced capability? Nobody. > > Well - Actually, that would be you. You further maintain a position that > applications from DEs should never be mixed, even post-install. And it > seems I'm not the only one you're arguing with about this. I did not say applications from multiple DEs should never coexist. I said multiple full DEs should not be an installer requirement. > > Let's cut to the chase here: Your actual motivation for all of this is > that you want to limit the amount of work that you do. You're just > disguising it in all sorts of excuses. Why not just say that you don't It's amusing that you assume I am shunning a piece of work, presumably in order to gain free time, as though I have no other work to keep me busy for the foreseeable future. > want to do it? Or, alternately, say that you don't have the cycles to do > it and, if people really want this done, you're going to need more > help/time/money, or similar. It's easier and it's a lot more honest. The > rest of us can then decide how we should adjust our priorities, ranging > from helping to find more resources willing to work on it, helping to > work on it ourselves, or even getting up and leaving. > > Chris > > -- > Christopher A. Williams <chriswfedora@xxxxxxxxxx> > -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
