On Tue, 2005-01-25 at 15:08, Chad Smith wrote: > > > It is free software - it might not be Free Software, as defined by the > FSF - but it is free software, because it is software that is free. > Only the FSF and other FLOSS people see a distinction there. To most of > the world, free software is software you don't have to pay for.
Which is why we need to be careful in the use of language to educate ost" of the World. The getting the message about the benefits of freedom in software is a key marketing goal for FLOSS. > I think cleaning up the code is a Good Thing (tm). But I also see > adding new features as good too. It's interesting that you make this > comment in the midst of a debate on the discuss thread about the removal > of a couple of options, which broke out into the whole design of the > preferences menu in general. > > I even brought out your desire for "elegance" in software. I'd like to > hear your thoughts on the "Horrendous" thread on [EMAIL PROTECTED] Only had time for a quick glance, but I think its a good example of double standards. If its a feature in our software and not in theirs its vitally important and a major omission in their product. If its the other way round its trivial and unimportant. This works from both sides. Clearly individual bells and whistles are important to individuals. I'd say that major improvements in efficiency in use for the stuff 99% of people use 80% of the time are a higher priority than debating details that only a few people use. Things like ease of install on networks is a far higher priority to me that where a cursor ends up. Why? Because it makes it much more likely that networks full of users will take up the product. -- Ian Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ZMS Ltd --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
