On Fri, 2009-02-06 at 09:57 -0500, Dimi Paun wrote:
Look: if a proposal is forwarded to change dubious defaults you
are told to come back with a rigorous scientific usability study
showing X and Y.
This isn't a usability argument. It's a power saving argument. The main
*counter* argument seems to be usability.
However, if someone from Red Hat wakes up one morning and decides
to change a default that will affect _everybody_ using a computer,
they do it without a moment's notice.
That's the privilege of being an upstream developer. Cry some more.
And we are supposed to swallow
it as such because someone came up with a *totally* unsupported
number of trees saved(1).
No, it's because someone directly measured a reduction in power usage.
Quite scientific, really.
2. Yes, it's political, based on the incorrect assumption that
we're gonna save trees.
No, the argument only got wrapped in plolitics because some people seem
to think that's a good idea. And you're only continuing it.