9 Mar
2016
9 Mar
'16
9:29 a.m.
On Wednesday 09 March 2016 03:23:36 Thomas Maus wrote:
Of course you are. But you are PART of it. Not the whole of it. Other
people matter too.
Tim is the project owner - and owns the hardware on which the project runs.
No - the final decision is Tim's.
You see and hear only what you want to see and hear (like most of us.)
Yes. I personally know of people to whom this applies. There are bound to be
others whom I do not know.
On Tuesday 08 March 2016, 22:44 wrote Lisi Reisz:
> On Tuesday 08 March 2016 20:07:51 Thomas Maus wrote:
> > I'm trying to lead a **rational** discussion here
[snip]
> > in a **heated** discussion to hit the
exactly correct tone.
My stars. I rest my case.
I asked why
"we" need a new logo. We
know what you think and demand that the rest of us think.
So in your perception I'm not part of the "we"? Your
credentials in Open Source are not relevant to your insistence that
your opinion has to be taken as incontrovertible fact.
My opinion is my opinion, and by definition a opinion is very obviously not
a fact.
(Even that my opinion is my opinion is not an incontrovertible fact, given
convincing arguments ...)
But here some facts, I based my conclusions on: My conclusions are known, what are your's? (2nd
person, plural -- as would
be unmistakable in German ;-)
I do not agree with you. Felix doesn't agree with you. Perhaps others don't
agree with you.
Tim has asked me not to air my analysis and conclusions in public.
Moreover you
are ignoring the fact that Tim asked me not to proselytise.
I was not knowing this fact -- until now. You mentioned you were asked, but
not by whom. (But I see not how this fact contributes to the discussion) You may feel
that _you_ have already answered the questions I asked. I
asked them of "us". Plural, not dual. I know what you think.
Probably not -- see below.
What about
all those who have so far said nothing? What about all those on the
users list?
They are completely free to voice their opinion, add new arguments and help
as to identify all chances, risks, pitfalls to find a good decision for the
project. Actually, I would appreciate if the silent majority
would speak.
Go and ask on the users list. But ask, don't steam-roll.
You ARE
wanting change for change's sake. You want change because TDE is
not "modern" enough. That is change for change's sake.
No, I definitely do not want "change for change's sake" -- as stated often
and in many variations (I don't know how to express this any clearer in
English). Hopefully you do not want "stasis for stasis's sake".
Because "stasis for stasis's sake" is as stupid and deadly as
"change for
change's sake" ... The idea of having two completely different logos
is IMHO a complete
non-starter and makes nonsense of having a logo.
You _will_ lose present users if you go along the track you want.
You state this as a fact!? If this is a fact
It is.
(or even a probable outcome) -- I'll stop
immediately.
Actually I considered stopping on the grounds of many intelligent people
currently wasting a lot of time
!! We agree on something!
-- and only your next statement compelled
me
to answer:
Yes, I'm sorry. That was a bit low.
This may, of course, be part of your design.
This is a serious imputation, far beyond purely offending! I read, that this project is about "stasis"
and "nostalgia" (well, that is
benevolent rephrasing) in a lot of places, but so far not on the project's
own Web-site. Maybe I missed something.
First mission statement - first statement - on the website:
<quote>
The Trinity Desktop Environment (TDE) project is a computer desktop
environment for Unix-like operating systems with a primary goal of
**retaining** the **function** and **form** of traditional desktop computers.
</quote>
My stars.
If there is no change wanted, please be so kind to
state this prominently
in a mission statement or project charter or whatever the correct and non-
inflammatory term is.
See above.
It will surely protect the project from people like me
-- in their
enthusiasm -- doing anything active which could be construed as "foisting"
their sinister "designs" of "change for change's sake" by chosing
"garish
deliberately M$- Windows"-like designs (like blue buttons, blue splash
screens, blue background -- oops, that is status-quo, sorry, mixed that up,
of course sparingly using the colors red/green/blue)
Yes, we are both entitled to our opinions. But yours is only an opinion, as
is mine. And I disagree profoundly with your analysis, as I say.
...
I actually think that your analysis of the "problems" is completely
wrong, and largely irrelevant.
That is fine with me. In the Internet nobody knows you smell of sulphur ];-)
:-)
Are you sure? ;-)
Lisi