On Wednesday 09 March 2016 03:23:36 Thomas Maus wrote:
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"?
Of course you are. But you are PART of it. Not the whole of it. Other people matter too.
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)
Tim is the project owner - and owns the hardware on which the project runs.
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.
No - the final decision is Tim's.
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" ...
You see and hear only what you want to see and hear (like most of us.)
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!?
Yes. I personally know of people to whom this applies. There are bound to be others whom I do not know.
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:
This may, of course, be part of your design.
This is a serious imputation, far beyond purely offending!
Yes, I'm sorry. That was a bit low.
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)
... I actually think that your analysis of the "problems" is completely wrong, and largely irrelevant.
That is fine with me.
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.
In the Internet nobody knows you smell of sulphur ];-)
:-)
Are you sure? ;-)
Lisi