8:10 p.m.
Who decided that gray on gray icons were a good idea
in new default gimp theme? Thank God I can change the
theme and icon selections in preferences :-).
Now if there was only a preference to scale everything
up so the text is big enough to see on a 4K monitor.
(And why does the tools window take 5 or 10 seconds
to go away after I quit?)
9:24 p.m.
Tom Horsley writes:
Who decided that gray on gray icons were a good idea
in new default gimp theme? Thank God I can change the
theme and icon selections in preferences :-).
That is, indeed, hideous.
Some out of work Gnome 3 UI Expert must've found a home at the Gimp project.
Now if there was only a preference to scale everything
up so the text is big enough to see on a 4K monitor.
For more fun: I selected the system theme, then kept switching between the
"Color" and the "Legacy" icon theme until the icon toolbox became
taller
than my display, with all icons squished into one vertical column.
(And why does the tools window take 5 or 10 seconds
to go away after I quit?)
Not seeing this one.
8:50 a.m.
On Sat, 17 Nov 2018 22:21:19 -0800, Samuel Sieb wrote:
On 11/17/18 7:24 PM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
> That is, indeed, hideous.
>
> Some out of work Gnome 3 UI Expert must've found a home at the Gimp
> project.
I think we've all figured out by now that you don't like Gnome. This
As far as I can see from his comment he only disaprove some GNOME UI
decisions not GNOME entirely.
kind of comment is not welcome on the mailing list.
Well, IMHO his is entitled to have his opinion. His comment is on topic
and in the right list.
Your statement instead is quite a police like rebuke and to my taste is
not welcome either.
:-)
9:17 a.m.
New subject: Gimp
Juan R. de Silva wrote:
On Sat, 17 Nov 2018 22:21:19 -0800, Samuel Sieb wrote:
> On 11/17/18 7:24 PM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
>> That is, indeed, hideous.
>>
>> Some out of work Gnome 3 UI Expert must've found a home at the Gimp
>> project.
>
> I think we've all figured out by now that you don't like Gnome. This
As far as I can see from his comment he only disaprove some GNOME UI
decisions not GNOME entirely.
> kind of comment is not welcome on the mailing list.
Well, IMHO his is entitled to have his opinion. His comment is on topic
and in the right list.
Your statement instead is quite a police like rebuke and to my taste is
not welcome either.
I support the response that comments of that nature are not welcome. It
went beyond just criticizing a specific idea, but a whole class of people
and/or their backgrounds. That is not up for debate.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/index.html
Such discourse is clearly neither considerate or respectful, and goes
against both the letter and spirit of the fedora code of conduct.
-- Rex
9:49 a.m.
New subject: Gimp
> As far as I can see from his comment he only disaprove some GNOME
UI
> decisions not GNOME entirely.
>
>> kind of comment is not welcome on the mailing list.
>
> Well, IMHO his is entitled to have his opinion. His comment is on topic
> and in the right list.
>
> Your statement instead is quite a police like rebuke and to my taste is
> not welcome either.
I support the response that comments of that nature are not welcome. It
went beyond just criticizing a specific idea, but a whole class of
people and/or their backgrounds. That is not up for debate.
Well, he did used irony or sarcasm, if your prefer. However the meaning
of it in the context of conversation was clearly directed to some
DECISIONS made by whoever was responcible for them. But he defenitely did
not touch any personalities in particular.
And I cannot see in his comment anything about anybody's in particular
background
Such discourse is clearly neither considerate or respectful, and
goes
against both the letter and spirit of the fedora code of conduct.
Irony and sarcasm are rarely considered "considerate or respectful" by
those aimed. However, both irony and sarcasm belong to a civilized
disputes toolset and are used in many public discussions on any level.
IMHO, some people should stop being too vigilant. I'm not really sure
GNOME needs souch tough protection? Healthy critisism never hurts and
always helpfull. Without it any project is liable to lose track and go to
a wrong direction until ended up in a ditch.
Let people use humor, irony, sarcasm, and whatever else (except explicit
insults certainly) and be thankfull they do. By speaking it out their
way they help you more than you think.
11:14 a.m.
New subject: Gimp
Hello Juan et all,
I don't know why do you think that comment was "police-like" or why do
you think that been disrespectful to Gnome designers is correct.
I don't like Gnome Shell, but I simply opt not to use it. I don't need to
be sarcastic and make comments on the people who work for the project. That
their approach doesn't fit my ways doesn't mean they're wrong or they
deserve sarcastic or diminishing comments.
Also, sarcasm and irony lead too easily to arguments and misunderstandings,
so it should be avoided. Particularly in written means such as email and
messaging.
My 2 cents.
Kind regards,
Silvia
FAS: Lailah
On Sun, 18 Nov 2018 at 16:43, Juan R. de Silva <juan.r.d.silva(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
>> As far as I can see from his comment he only disaprove some
GNOME UI
>> decisions not GNOME entirely.
>>
>>> kind of comment is not welcome on the mailing list.
>>
>> Well, IMHO his is entitled to have his opinion. His comment is on topic
>> and in the right list.
>>
>> Your statement instead is quite a police like rebuke and to my taste is
>> not welcome either.
>
> I support the response that comments of that nature are not welcome. It
> went beyond just criticizing a specific idea, but a whole class of
> people and/or their backgrounds. That is not up for debate.
Well, he did used irony or sarcasm, if your prefer. However the meaning
of it in the context of conversation was clearly directed to some
DECISIONS made by whoever was responcible for them. But he defenitely did
not touch any personalities in particular.
And I cannot see in his comment anything about anybody's in particular
background
> Such discourse is clearly neither considerate or respectful, and goes
> against both the letter and spirit of the fedora code of conduct.
Irony and sarcasm are rarely considered "considerate or respectful" by
those aimed. However, both irony and sarcasm belong to a civilized
disputes toolset and are used in many public discussions on any level.
IMHO, some people should stop being too vigilant. I'm not really sure
GNOME needs souch tough protection? Healthy critisism never hurts and
always helpfull. Without it any project is liable to lose track and go to
a wrong direction until ended up in a ditch.
Let people use humor, irony, sarcasm, and whatever else (except explicit
insults certainly) and be thankfull they do. By speaking it out their
way they help you more than you think.
_______________________________________________
users mailing list -- users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
11:32 a.m.
New subject: Gimp
On 11/18/2018 10:14 AM, Frau Silvia Sánchez wrote:
I don't know why do you think that comment was
"police-like" or why do
you think that been disrespectful to Gnome designers is correct.
I can't speak for anybody else on the list, but to me, your comment came
across as very PC. I think it's safe to say that the only PC that's on
topic on this list is the Personal Computer.
1:15 p.m.
New subject: Gimp
I don't know what is PC other than Personal Computer
On Sun, 18 Nov 2018 at 18:23, Joe Zeff <joe(a)zeff.us> wrote:
On 11/18/2018 10:14 AM, Frau Silvia Sánchez wrote:
> I don't know why do you think that comment was "police-like" or why
do
> you think that been disrespectful to Gnome designers is correct.
I can't speak for anybody else on the list, but to me, your comment came
across as very PC. I think it's safe to say that the only PC that's on
topic on this list is the Personal Computer.
_______________________________________________
users mailing list -- users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
2:16 p.m.
New subject: Gimp
On 11/18/2018 12:15 PM, Frau Silvia Sánchez wrote:
)
I don't know what is PC other than Personal Computer
Here in the USA, it also stands for "Politically Correct."
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness)
4:11 p.m.
New subject: Gimp
On 18-11-18 14:15:05, Frau Silvia Sánchez wrote:
I don't know what is PC other than Personal Computer
Google "pc acronym" and you will get a reasonable list. You'd
probably choose Politically Correct from that list as appropriate for
the context.
Look up "pc" on wikipedia and learn much, much more!
--
____________________________________________________________________
TonyN.:' <mailto:tonynelson@georgeanelson.com>
' <http://www.georgeanelson.com/>
7:42 p.m.
New subject: Gimp
The bottom line is that if someone desperately wants to be offended,
they will find a way. Conversely, if someone doesn't want to be
offended, it's almost impossible to offend them.
This seems to be a mysterious secret to a lot of people. Many years
ago, I realized that being "offended" was completely up to me. I made
the conscious decision not be be offended by anything anybody said to
or about me, unless it served some particular tactical purpose. It was
amazingly liberating.
Choosing to be offended is exactly that -- a choice. If one chooses to
be offended, then one is offended. And there is nothing anybody else
can do about it. Since it's a choice, and since the choice is based on
individual desires and motivations, there's no real value in debating
whether or not something is somehow "inherently" offensive by some
nonexistent objective standard. Such a standard does not actually
exist. Those who try to impose such as standard are simply trying to
impose their particular desires.
billo
On Sun, 2018-11-18 at 10:32 -0700, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 11/18/2018 10:14 AM, Frau Silvia Sánchez wrote:
> I don't know why do you think that comment was "police-like" or
> why do
> you think that been disrespectful to Gnome designers is correct.
I can't speak for anybody else on the list, but to me, your comment
came
across as very PC. I think it's safe to say that the only PC that's
on
topic on this list is the Personal Computer.
_______________________________________________
users mailing list -- users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
8:32 p.m.
New subject: Gimp
William Oliver writes:
The bottom line is that if someone desperately wants to be offended,
they will find a way. Conversely, if someone doesn't want to be
offended, it's almost impossible to offend them.
This seems to be a mysterious secret to a lot of people. Many years
ago, I realized that being "offended" was completely up to me. I made
the conscious decision not be be offended by anything anybody said to
or about me, unless it served some particular tactical purpose. It was
amazingly liberating.
I framed pretty much the same concept but in a different way. Some time ago
I decided upon the following personal policy, or a principle: from now on my
permission is required before anyone can offend me. If they did not get a
personal permission from me to offend me, then they cannot offend me.
From that point on, nobody offended me unless I gave them explicit
permission to do so, first.
10:48 a.m.
New subject: Gimp
On Sun, 18 Nov 2018 21:32:16 -0500
Sam Varshavchik <mrsam(a)courier-mta.com> wrote:
William Oliver writes:
> The bottom line is that if someone desperately wants to be offended,
> they will find a way. Conversely, if someone doesn't want to be
> offended, it's almost impossible to offend them.
>
> This seems to be a mysterious secret to a lot of people. Many years
> ago, I realized that being "offended" was completely up to me. I
> made the conscious decision not be be offended by anything anybody
> said to or about me, unless it served some particular tactical
> purpose. It was amazingly liberating.
I framed pretty much the same concept but in a different way. Some
time ago I decided upon the following personal policy, or a
principle: from now on my permission is required before anyone can
offend me. If they did not get a personal permission from me to
offend me, then they cannot offend me.
From that point on, nobody offended me unless I gave them explicit
permission to do so, first.
Reading this thread, I think that Sam, William, and Wolfgang have
pretty much the same response to this, a very self-actualized response.
I congratulate you, because your attitude is a great one to have.
However, I want to point out that you are probably capable of that
attitude because of a couple of fortunate circumstances. First, you
probably had an upbringing that enabled you to have the ability to
adopt that attitude. i.e. your environment programmed you without
harming you, and gave you good base values and beliefs. Second, your
brain is probably wired in a way that made it easier for you. Many
people in this world don't have those advantages. They had abusive
childhoods that programmed them as victims. They have cognitive wiring
that makes it harder for them to overcome this.
For example, there are people who have to jump off mountains wearing
wingsuits in order to feel truly alive. And there are people who find
going to the supermarket a near overwhelming experience. They just have
different gain wired into the sensory circuits of their brains.
If everyone in the world was like you, or even capable of being like
you, then 'anything goes' could be the rule. Your boss would call you
in to give you a pep talk as so:
"XXXX, what is this latest turkey you produced? Have you got shit for
brains? A five year old could do better work than this. I'm surprised
you can walk and chew gum at the same time. Now get out there and
produce something worthwhile, or I'll fire your useless ass!"
But everyone in the world isn't like you, and so if we want to make
contributions from everyone welcome, we have to make all those psyche
styles welcome. That means everyone has to coalesce around a greatest
common divisor style, a mostly non-confrontational and non-belittling
style, a style that probably isn't completely comfortable for anyone.
In the old days, like last century, before the web and trolls and likes
and followers and ..., that was called being polite. Everyone gave a
little, and we got along, mostly.
Political correctness is a hijacking of such politeness. It's an
attempt to move that greatest common divisor style to one end of the
spectrum, to ensure that even the most sensitive and disadvantaged
person never feels slighted. I remember reading a science fiction
story once. It was a world where everyone was lowered to the lowest
common denominator. So less intelligent people wouldn't feel
slighted, more intelligent people had constant distractors like noises
and electric shocks applied. Dancers wore weights and unbalanced
shoes. And so on. That's political correctness, not politeness.
It is in effect saying that one person is more valuable than another,
that offending one person is more valuable than disabling another.
We will all disagree where the line should be drawn, so there will be
conflict and debate.
As long as this is, it's still simplistic, so lots of untied ends.
4:44 p.m.
New subject: Gimp
stan writes:
Reading this thread, I think that Sam, William, and Wolfgang have
pretty much the same response to this, a very self-actualized response.
I congratulate you, because your attitude is a great one to have.
However, I want to point out that you are probably capable of that
attitude because of a couple of fortunate circumstances. First, you
probably had an upbringing that enabled you to have the ability to
adopt that attitude. i.e. your environment programmed you without
harming you, and gave you good base values and beliefs. Second, your
brain is probably wired in a way that made it easier for you. Many
people in this world don't have those advantages. They had abusive
childhoods that programmed them as victims. They have cognitive wiring
that makes it harder for them to overcome this.
There are always individual exceptions, but in general I believe that this
is exactly the opposite.
It is precisely those who successfully overcame life's personal obstacles,
who beaten tremendous odds and challenges – those individuals who have
succeeded despite every boundary and obstacle that life threw their way –
it is those individuals who learned the value of having a solid foundation
of self-esteem, personal responsibility, and a strong ethic: those are the
kind of people who are just not going to take any crap from anyone else.
If everyone in the world was like you, or even capable of being like
you, then 'anything goes' could be the rule. Your boss would call you
in to give you a pep talk as so:
"XXXX, what is this latest turkey you produced? Have you got shit for
brains? A five year old could do better work than this. I'm surprised
you can walk and chew gum at the same time. Now get out there and
produce something worthwhile, or I'll fire your useless ass!"
Ummm, no. I'm pretty sure that's not going to be "the rule". At most,
something like that would happen only for the first, and last time.
When I wrote that an appropriate license is require before someone is
allowed to offend me, it doesn't mean that I'll just sit there, quietly,
while they rant and rave in my direction.
That's not what I meant, at all.
But everyone in the world isn't like you, and so if we want to
make
contributions from everyone welcome, we have to make all those psyche
styles welcome.
What's this, stackoverflow.com?
That means everyone has to coalesce around a
greatest
common divisor style, a mostly non-confrontational and non-belittling
Hold that thought.
person never feels slighted. I remember reading a science fiction
story once. It was a world where everyone was lowered to the lowest
common denominator.
Right, and I opt myself out.
I'm simply not going to reduce myself to the lowest common denominator in
the vicinity. I won't stop, or object, to someone else who chooses to do so.
That's their decision to make, but it won't be mine.
6:16 a.m.
New subject: Gimp
Allegedly, on or about 18 November 2018, William Oliver sent:
The bottom line is that if someone desperately wants to be offended,
they will find a way. Conversely, if someone doesn't want to be
offended, it's almost impossible to offend them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceS_jkKjIgo
Brilliant sketch about this
--
[tim@localhost ~]$ uname -rsvp
Linux 4.16.11-100.fc26.x86_64 #1 SMP Tue May 22 20:02:12 UTC 2018 x86_64
Boilerplate: All mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted.
There is no point trying to privately email me, I only get to see
the messages posted to the mailing list.
less is more when playing with your cat...
1:25 p.m.
New subject: Gimp
On Sun, 18 Nov 2018 15:49:00 +0000 (UTC)
"Juan R. de Silva" <juan.r.d.silva(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Irony and sarcasm are rarely considered "considerate or
respectful"
by those aimed. However, both irony and sarcasm belong to a civilized
disputes toolset and are used in many public discussions on any level.
The internet lends itself to critical comments. It's easy to post
such comments in an email list, or anywhere else on the web. Would you
say those kinds of things to the developer's faces? How likely would
you be to have a constructive conversation if you did?
Those are still people on the other end of that conversation. How
would you respond if someone discounted *your* work in those terms?
There is a label for the skill of interacting well with other people,
emotional intelligence, and because it is now recognized, it is becoming
a necessary skill for success in organizations. Recruiters look, and
test, for it.
4:02 p.m.
New subject: Gimp
Short version:
Grow some balls, guys, please!
On Sun, Nov 18, 2018 at 12:25:10PM -0700, stan wrote:
On Sun, 18 Nov 2018 15:49:00 +0000 (UTC)
"Juan R. de Silva" <juan.r.d.silva(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Irony and sarcasm are rarely considered "considerate or respectful"
> by those aimed. However, both irony and sarcasm belong to a civilized
> disputes toolset and are used in many public discussions on any level.
The internet lends itself to critical comments. It's easy to post
such comments in an email list, or anywhere else on the web. Would you
say those kinds of things to the developer's faces?
It was no ad hominem sarcasm. It was a general sarcastic comment about
Gimp/Gnome and the way how coders build it.
How likely would you be to have a constructive conversation if you
did?
See above: It wasn't a conversation with Gimp/Gnome coders - it was a
sarcastic comment about how the OP thinks coders build these programs.
And how about freedom of speech?
Those are still people on the other end of that conversation. How
would you respond if someone discounted *your* work in those terms?
Maybe that they are right? And that I made mistakes?
If they insulted me in front of a crowd, and right in my face, I swear
I'd give them some appropriate text. And be sure these losers wouldn't
blush just once. And next time these guys would not just think twice,
but ten times more before they even wasted one single thought about
offending me, or not.
But that's exactly the point: Nowadays more and more adult men and
women still seem to need moms and dads around them - or some Rex
Dieters for that matter - to come save them from these guys making
sarcastic comments.
There is a label for the skill of interacting well with other people,
emotional intelligence
We have a brain to understand, or not. And successfully socialized
guys know what is empathy, or not. The moment emotions guide our
brains, even decisions, we're generally in real deep shit.
and because it is now recognized, it is becoming a necessary skill
for success in organizations.
Do I really need to prove that a majority isn't necessarily right just
because they're the majority? I recommend a history book and see how
majorities can become - literally - deadly wrong.
Recruiters look, and test, for it.
Do they? Making sure grown up men and women, still needing all sorts
of moms and dads around them, are not offended by a few jokes?
Do you really want a world where everyone is too weak to defend
themselves, so we need all kinds of nannies around us for protection?
Regards,
Wolfgang
--
Avoid Boring People - James D. Watson
4:28 p.m.
New subject: Gimp
On Sun, Nov 18, 2018 at 11:02:16PM +0100, Wolfgang Pfeiffer wrote:
>How likely would you be to have a constructive conversation if
you
>did?
See above: It wasn't a conversation with Gimp/Gnome coders - it was a
sarcastic comment about how the OP thinks coders build these programs.
No, obviously wrong: it wasn't the OP's comment ..
Sorry
wolfgang
11:35 a.m.
New subject: Gimp
On 11/18/18 2:02 PM, Wolfgang Pfeiffer wrote:
Short version:
Grow some balls, guys, please!
Oh, jeeze. Can we leave the vitriol and comments for and against PC
for some social media site and deal with the issue at hand? This has
nothing to do with the issue at hand.
To the OP, contact the Gimp people at their mailing list or whatever and
file a suggestion that grey-on-grey is a terrible UI decision and they
really should rethink that choice. Then change to a scheme you're
comfortable with and move on.
<removing a bunch of cruft that doesn't belong on this list>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
- Rick Stevens, Systems Engineer, AllDigital ricks(a)alldigital.com -
- AIM/Skype: therps2 ICQ: 226437340 Yahoo: origrps2 -
- -
- Reality: A crutch for those who can't handle science fiction -
----------------------------------------------------------------------
6:54 p.m.
New subject: Gimp
stan writes:
The internet lends itself to critical comments. It's easy to
post
such comments in an email list, or anywhere else on the web. Would you
say those kinds of things to the developer's faces? How likely would
you be to have a constructive conversation if you did?
Those are still people on the other end of that conversation. How
would you respond if someone discounted *your* work in those terms?
I think I would have enough self-confidence and maturity to laugh it off,
and ignore it. I do not require someone's approval of my corporeal self, to
be confident of its worth.
And I've certainly had enough invective thrown at me over the years.
Fortunately, I'm not a delicate snowflake that's vulnerable to frequent
triggering and in a perpetual search of a safe space. I'm a big boy. I can
handle it. Feel free to (try to) flame me out as much as you care. I won't
mind.
And I feel nothing but pity for those who can't handle it, and get wound up
over mere words. Especially over some words not even directed at them, but
at some abstract individual. I guess someone appointed them to be some kind
of sensitivity police, and they get some measure of self-satisfaction out of
performing their duties.
Well, whatever floats their boat.
9:56 p.m.
New subject: Gimp
Juan R. de Silva wrote:
>> As far as I can see from his comment he only disaprove some
GNOME UI
>> decisions not GNOME entirely.
>>
>>> kind of comment is not welcome on the mailing list.
>>
>> Well, IMHO his is entitled to have his opinion. His comment is on topic
>> and in the right list.
>>
>> Your statement instead is quite a police like rebuke and to my taste is
>> not welcome either.
>
> I support the response that comments of that nature are not welcome. It
> went beyond just criticizing a specific idea, but a whole class of
> people and/or their backgrounds. That is not up for debate.
Well, he did used irony or sarcasm, if your prefer. However the meaning
of it in the context of conversation was clearly directed to some
DECISIONS made by whoever was responcible for them. But he defenitely did
not touch any personalities in particular.
And I cannot see in his comment anything about anybody's in particular
background
They are suggesting all gnome designers are bad in this regard, exactly.
It's a generalization and is not about a specific idea (to criticize).
> Such discourse is clearly neither considerate or respectful, and
goes
> against both the letter and spirit of the fedora code of conduct.
Irony and sarcasm are rarely considered "considerate or respectful" by
...
IMHO, some people should stop being too vigilant.
It is sarcasm at the expense of other people (again, not about ideas, but
*people*). If anyone feels they need to talk like that, please do it
elsewhere. Again, it is not welcome here.
-- Rex
-- Rex
4:20 a.m.
New subject: Gimp
On Sun, Nov 18, 2018 at 09:56:24PM -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
Juan R. de Silva wrote:
>>> As far as I can see from his comment he only disaprove some GNOME UI
>>> decisions not GNOME entirely.
>>>
>>>> kind of comment is not welcome on the mailing list.
>>>
>>> Well, IMHO his is entitled to have his opinion. His comment is on topic
>>> and in the right list.
>>>
>>> Your statement instead is quite a police like rebuke and to my taste is
>>> not welcome either.
>>
>> I support the response that comments of that nature are not welcome. It
>> went beyond just criticizing a specific idea, but a whole class of
>> people and/or their backgrounds. That is not up for debate.
>
> Well, he did used irony or sarcasm, if your prefer. However the meaning
> of it in the context of conversation was clearly directed to some
> DECISIONS made by whoever was responcible for them. But he defenitely did
> not touch any personalities in particular.
>
> And I cannot see in his comment anything about anybody's in particular
> background
They are suggesting all gnome designers are bad in this regard, exactly.
It's a generalization and is not about a specific idea (to criticize).
He's suggesting - at best - that gnome/gimp designers in general (not
even all of them) are pursuing the wrong concept - it's clearly not
about what these programmers are doing in their private life. The joke
obviously was about the ideas they're trying to materialize in their
work on Gnome/Gimp ..
>> Such discourse is clearly neither considerate or respectful, and goes
>> against both the letter and spirit of the fedora code of conduct.
>
> Irony and sarcasm are rarely considered "considerate or respectful" by
...
> IMHO, some people should stop being too vigilant.
It is sarcasm at the expense of other people (again, not about ideas, but
*people*).
As said above: fully wrong. The joke obviously was about ideas. Please
read it the context where it was written. And besides: since when do
ideas appear independently of humans?
In the end it all comes down to a few problems some of you seem to
have with people speaking freely.
If anyone feels they need to talk like that, please do it
elsewhere. Again, it is not welcome here.
I see.
Regards,
Wolfgang
1:54 p.m.
Allegedly, on or about 18 November 2018, Juan R. de Silva sent:
As far as I can see from his comment he only disaprove some GNOME UI
decisions not GNOME entirely.
If Gnome doesn't like being critiqued so much, perhaps they should stop
doing things that invite it. Such as removing user configuration on a
platform where letting the user make the computer do exactly what they
want (Linux) has always been a major drawcard.
--
[tim@localhost ~]$ uname -rsvp
Linux 4.16.11-100.fc26.x86_64 #1 SMP Tue May 22 20:02:12 UTC 2018 x86_64
Boilerplate: All mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted.
There is no point trying to privately email me, I only get to see
the messages posted to the mailing list.
When it comes to electronics, I'm slightly biased.
1978
days inactive
1979
days old
25 comments
14 participants
participants (14)
-
Ed Greshko -
Frau Silvia Sánchez -
Joe Zeff -
Juan R. de Silva -
Rex Dieter -
Rick Stevens -
Sam Varshavchik -
Samuel Sieb -
stan -
Tim -
Tom Horsley -
Tony Nelson -
William Oliver -
Wolfgang Pfeiffer