[Desktop_architects] Different angles of attack
Jeff Waugh
jdub at perkypants.org
Tue Dec 13 10:56:17 PST 2005
<quote who="Linus Torvalds">
> But the fact that users and developers don't know does NOT mean that
> customization is bad. Quite the reverse. It means that defaults make
> sense, but since you don't know what they'll be doing, you should always
> strive to have ways to let _them_ make the choice when they have some
> reason the default doesn't agree with them.
Havoc's going to kill me for this, but anyway, you are basically saying the
following:
"IMO we should end the thread based on that; configurability is always the
best choice when it's pretty simple to implement."
-- Havoc Pennington, 1998
We've grown up a lot since then.
Avoiding policy might be the best thing to do as a kernel developer, but as
a desktop developer, all it means is that you're shirking the responsibility
you have to your users.
I think the major things to take away from this discussion are:
* We have different ideas of where the balance should lie, and those inform
the decisions we make across the desktop projects. These differences are
healthy and good.
* GNOME still needs to be better at communicating its philosophy, as well
as what is designed vs. what is a bug.
* None of this discussion has impacted the healthy working relationship
that the desktop developers have built, despite the dim white noise of
users beating each other to a pulp in the background.
Thanks,
- Jeff
--
linux.conf.au 2006: Dunedin, New Zealand http://linux.conf.au/
Echidnas, or at least the ones I've met, don't have joy. Adults very
rarely have joy. Kids have hyperkinetic nuclear joy in abundance.
More information about the Desktop_architects
mailing list