On Mon, 2012-07-09 at 15:57 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Mon, 2012-07-09 at 14:50 -0500, David Lehman wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > Sorry, Chris wins this one. You made an unsupported assertion; he called > you out on it and asked for support; you failed to support your argument > and instead decided to fall back on the old standby of saying 'you > didn't offer to help with the code'. I don't see how this works as a > response to the argument; are you seriously suggesting that no-one can > point out an unsupported assertion except someone who is actively > writing code alongside you? No, I was just annoyed by the tone of the email's author. He's got me dead to rights: I did not conduct any surveys. Doesn't change anything. > > > 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. > > That also looks like a shabby argument to me, David. You're the one > doing the assuming, not Chris. You cut his paragraph right before he > went on to posit two possible alternative reasons why you might be > limiting the amount of work: "you don't want to do it" *or* "you don't > have the cycles to do it". The fact that he raised both possibilities > clearly indicates he was not assuming either of them. I was off in the weeds with the "too hard" line of argument. I never needed it. To be clear, this decision has nothing to do with limiting the amount of work we are doing for the UI rewrite. There is nothing difficult about installing multiple desktop environments from the installer perspective as far as I know. I was mis-remembering upgrade-related shenanigans related to desktops and login managers. The simple truth is that there are a lot of reasons for organizing things into a desktop (or base spin/flavor/variant) and add-ons. One thing it enables is a unification of the current spins with the non-live OS install so they don't have different output products. If you want a second or third desktop environment, great. Install it some way other than in anaconda's GUI. I also provided two alternatives very early on in this discussion: use kickstart for install or use the package manager of your choice, post-install. I said this in my first or second post on this subject. I should have ignored the follow-ups. Hopefully next time I will. -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
