[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