Re: GNOME: lack of strategic roadmap
On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 21:32 -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: > At a technical level, I wish that GNOME made it easier to relate > the visible GUI level to the underlying level of the command line As an aside, one thing I find myself doing a lot of is: $ cd ~/some/path $ command $ another Hm. This would be easier graphically... $ gnome-open . which pops Nautilus up at ~/some/path. [hey neat] And meanwhile, when I've been navigating around in Nautilus for a while and suddenly am getting annoyed that I'm not on the command line, I can (via the nautilus-open-terminal plugin which is packaged in Debian & Gentoo), context menu -> Open in Terminal and ta-da, $ echo $PWD /home/andrew/some/path $ [hey neat :)] which all makes for a nice duality and quite nice switching between graphical and command-line paradigms. [yes yes, you can just pop a terminal and chdir, but that's not the point. This is easier, and context driven] Anyway, not quite what Richard was getting at; his message describes a more general and pervasive case, but this all is a good step in that direction. AfC Sydney signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME: lack of strategic roadmap
El mié, 03-03-2010 a las 02:36 +0100, Philip Van Hoof escribió: > On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 18:19 -0700, Stormy Peters wrote: > > People are not interested in having this argument and you are causing > > people to unsubscribe to the Foundation List and to quit > > participating. > > That's their action. And you can't control that. > > (what's your point?) > Her point Philip is that you seem to keep picking fights in this list and hijacking threads for that purpose. If you check this thread you'll see that it all started with an email exchange between Iván Frade, Richard Stallman and me. We discussed a way to enhance experience, Richard reminded us that we shouldn't be careless about adding support for propietary platforms because of the potential misinterpretation: I am only saying that if we develop software specifically to work with Facebook, we should take care to prevent it from conveying the message "Use Facebook!" And in a later email: The line between "working with facebook" and "specifically encouraging use of facebook" is a subtle one. I never saw Richard's aggressive questions about our morality as GNOME programmers, I only saw a suggestion and a reminder. However, you chose to kept arguing about how Richard had "insulted [y]our morality and that of all GNOME programmers". I'm a GNOME programmer, and the people that have expressed his "deep disagreement" with your attitude are also GNOME programmers. > > If people don't respond, assume they are not interested in that topic. > > Sure. > > > I will not be replying to this thread publicly any more. > > Although your reply is fair, I did ask these three questions: > > 1) > Why didn't the GNOME Foundation take a stance on that? > We can't produce statements for every disagreement in Foundation list. Specially if it seems to be a personal quest. This is not the first time, please stop trying to drag this list and the Foundation itself into a quest to outvoice others. > 2) > Wasn't that formulation starting an argument with me? > No, it wasn't. > 3) > And how wasn't it? If it wasn't. > We pay Stormy for advancing GNOME, this thread /was/ about a big GNOME roadmap for the years to come. However you hijacked it, it is no longer about GNOME's future, it's now about discussing things with you, all about you. Stormy is acting on the Foundation's interest by saving us valuable money by not wasting it in discussions like this. I, on the other hand, am donating time to try to make things clear with you. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME: lack of strategic roadmap
On 3/2/10 4:39 PM, "Stormy Peters" wrote: > > Philip, I think a lot of people are saying they'd rather not see these > arguments on the Foundation list. That's not what I'm seeing. What I'm seeing are personal attacks and loose rhetoric (e.g. "pissing contest") in response to pretty reasoned attempts to take issueonce againwith the pronouncements of the FSF as they should presumably apply to GNOME. In every instance, no matter how silly or harmful the statementand I personally view this claim that Facebook is somehow a front for the CIA to be bothno actual disagreement is tolerated. > We've had several threads in the past month that go on and on without being > productive at all and you are one of the most frequent posters to each of > them. I don't know whether they were productive or not, but shutting them down after the shouts of "troll!" or "pissing contest!" have broken out, and then castigating the folks getting yelled at, guarantees that nothing productive will come out of them except yet another disagreement over a pointlessly provocative statement swept under the rug. > I believe the way you respond often takes the thread off topic and turns it > argumentative. I'd say that the way that a _lot_ of people responde.g. the subthread on the "pvanhoof problem"is off-topic and argumentative. Please don't single out Philip here (again). There are at least four other people you should have spoken to first. > When I've asked in the past, you've been good about stopping the personal > insults. Now I'm asking you to seriously consider each post you make to the > Foundation list and ask yourself whether each part contributes productively to > the conversation. Maybe you should ask the same of some others as well. Once again, if we want to improve things with respect to some of the more important "communities" outside of our own, the way to do it is to engage with them in a positive way. Vilification won't do it, repeating unsupported and tenuous gossip won't do it, calling them names won't do it, insisting that using their site, service or product is a "harmful practice" won't do it. I don't think that sort of thing "contributes productively to the conversation". Why do we tolerate _that_ so well? ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME: lack of strategic roadmap
On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 18:19 -0700, Stormy Peters wrote: > Because you are being disruptive on the Foundation List. Again. That's your believe. Good for you. > People are not interested in having this argument and you are causing > people to unsubscribe to the Foundation List and to quit > participating. That's their action. And you can't control that. (what's your point?) > If you do support GNOME, then please stop turning every thread into an > argument. Respond to things you perceive as argumentative off list. I do support GNOME. I want its Foundation to be strong. > If people don't respond, assume they are not interested in that topic. Sure. > I will not be replying to this thread publicly any more. Although your reply is fair, I did ask these three questions: 1) > Why didn't the GNOME Foundation take a stance on that? 2) > Wasn't that formulation starting an argument with me? 3) > And how wasn't it? If it wasn't. Why aren't you answering those questions? Cheers, Philip -- Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer home: me at pvanhoof dot be gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org http://pvanhoof.be/blog http://codeminded.be ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME: lack of strategic roadmap
On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 6:06 PM, Philip Van Hoof wrote: > I wonder why *nobody* so far is going into the things that I said in my > last reply, but why everybody so far is instead going into this. > Because you are being disruptive on the Foundation List. People are not interested in having this argument and you are causing people to unsubscribe to the Foundation List and to quit participating. If you do support GNOME, then please stop turning every thread into an argument. Respond to things you perceive as argumentative off list. If people don't respond, assume they are not interested in that topic. I will not be replying to this thread publicly any more. Stormy ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME: lack of strategic roadmap
On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 17:39 -0700, Stormy Peters wrote: > 2010/3/2 Philip Van Hoof > > > Stop dragging the GNOME Foundation list down these off topic > > roads and stop this pissing contest. > I think you, and many other people, are misinterpreting this > as a pissing contest. It's not. It's a quite serious debate. > > And I think it's insulting of you to call it a pissing > contest. > > If you don't like the debate, then why aren't you simply > ignoring us? > Philip, I think a lot of people are saying they'd rather not see these > arguments on the Foundation list. And they are probably right. I wonder why *nobody* so far is going into the things that I said in my last reply, but why everybody so far is instead going into this. Anyway (really, it's fine for me. You hate it more than I do) Thing is, that I really want the GNOME Foundation to take a stance on these matters. Rather than continuing to ignore it. I want it to stop hiding. To stop being afraid. It might be surprising, but I'm pro a strong GNOME Foundation. > We've had several threads in the past month that go on and on without > being productive at all and you are one of the most frequent posters > to each of them. Each of the threads had a different nuance. That I'm one of the most frequent posters just means that I "voice" my opinion. Luis's text is vague about this, but it does allow the Foundation's members to give their opinion: http://www.co-ment.net/text/141/ (I'm using the last version here) "The intent of the Membership is to provide the opportunity for all contributors to have a place and a voice in the GNOME foundation." > I believe the way you respond often takes the thread off topic and > turns it argumentative. Everybody has believes. Good for you. > When I've asked in the past, you've been good about stopping the > personal insults. I tried. Thanks for acknowledging this. > Now I'm asking you to seriously consider each post you make to the > Foundation list and ask yourself whether each part contributes > productively to the conversation. When a person is saying that programmers "often" forget about ethical values like freedom, he's saying things about the morality of said programmers. I'm such a programmer. Imagine that he would have said: "Women often forget about ethical values like freedom" Do I really have to illustrate how certain feminists within GNOME would likely respond to that? I'm willing to let go of this part of the debate. I'm not willing to accept the insult. Not ever. Why didn't the GNOME Foundation take a stance on that? It's your responsibility, Stormy. My opinion might not be popular, but this is what we expect. > For example, the three sentences I quoted above do not contribute in > any way to the conversation. They start an argument with J5. If you > want to argue with people, take it off list. You might be right about the last three sentences. But why didn't you said the same thing to John who accused me of turning this into a "pissing contest"? I didn't formulate this term. I'm responding to it. Wasn't that formulation starting an argument with me? And how wasn't it? If it wasn't. Cheers, Philip -- Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer home: me at pvanhoof dot be gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org http://pvanhoof.be/blog http://codeminded.be ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME: lack of strategic roadmap
2010/3/2 Philip Van Hoof > > Stop dragging the GNOME Foundation list down these off topic roads and > stop this pissing contest. > > > > I think you, and many other people, are misinterpreting this as a pissing > contest. It's not. It's a quite serious debate. > > And I think it's insulting of you to call it a pissing contest. > > If you don't like the debate, then why aren't you simply ignoring us? > Philip, I think a lot of people are saying they'd rather not see these arguments on the Foundation list. We've had several threads in the past month that go on and on without being productive at all and you are one of the most frequent posters to each of them. I believe the way you respond often takes the thread off topic and turns it argumentative. When I've asked in the past, you've been good about stopping the personal insults. Now I'm asking you to seriously consider each post you make to the Foundation list and ask yourself whether each part contributes productively to the conversation. For example, the three sentences I quoted above do not contribute in any way to the conversation. They start an argument with J5. If you want to argue with people, take it off list. Stormy ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME: lack of strategic roadmap
On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 18:58 -0500, john palmieri wrote: Hey John, I'm keeping most of the original E-mails. I have been misquoted and my quotes have been taken out of context too often for [CUT] to be useful. It's sad, but truth. > On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 6:18 PM, Philip Van Hoof > wrote: > > On Sun, 2010-02-28 at 22:59 -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: > > IMHO talking about Facebook and who should demand them to > free info is a > > bit out of place here. Please let's not diverge the > thread into that or > > into a battle about how much we should promote Free > Software or non Free > > alternatives. > > > > In my fantasies, the free software movement might be so > influential > > that we could make demands and Facebook would have to heed > them. In > > reality, we are not in a position to correct the social > problems > > caused by Facebook, and I do not suggest making that our > goal. > > > > Why not? > > You changed the social aspect of software development in the > past by > inspiring software engineers to follow a certain pro social > model. > > Why not do it again for the current generation, and change the > game for > the many social community websites being created in this era? > > If the only problem is that the web and its many innovations > aren't part > of your generation, then I don't see what the real problem is; > > The social aspects are the same. > > Why isn't the FSF talking with these companies and > organizations about > standardizing data about social networks? Why not talk with > the European > Commission about getting rules on personal privacy? Why not > talk with > Neelie Kroes about competition laws for near-monopolies like > Facebook? > > If the FSF would be really be pro 'freedom' of people, they'd > do all > that. In fact, you guys are many people's only hope for > improvement > here: There are no other organizations even trying at this > moment. > > But for that, we need you and the FSF to become more > pragmatic. > > Instead, we have to listen to nonsense about Mono. Nonsense > about ethics > that people know more about themselves, for themselves, than > the FSF > does. And all the nonsense is turning many FSF fans into > zealots. > > > Um, don't confuse Boycott Novell with RMS or the FSF. The FSF has > moved to a more pragmatic stance though I haven't noticed it yet. But maybe I have not been paying attention enough? I'm willing to be convinced. > talking about pragmatism is like talking about right and left - > everyone's center is different. Of course. I think the quote "everyone's center is different" should be central for the GNOME Foundation. > As for RMS's stance on Mono, he has come to espouse his own views on > something that in the domain of GNOME where as now Facebook is pretty > off topic. This sentence does not compute for me. Maybe I'm just really bad at understanding English? > Stop dragging the GNOME Foundation list down these off topic roads and > stop this pissing contest. I think you, and many other people, are misinterpreting this as a pissing contest. It's not. It's a quite serious debate. And I think it's insulting of you to call it a pissing contest. If you don't like the debate, then why aren't you simply ignoring us? > Everything that can be said has been said and the thread should be > taken off list. Feel free to start a Boycott FSF or Boycott RMS site > to continue this bike-shedding. There is no bikeshedding here at all. You're just trying to make people believe that there's bikeshedding happening. Let people judge for themselves. Why don't you trust them? > > Of course people like me, and Lefty, start saying 'no more'. > > > What did you, or anybody, expect? > > Please, change course with the FSF. I'm asking it seriously > now. > > > Please don't drag the Foundation into this. The foundation supports > and is supported by the FSF. The foundation don't always agree with > the FSF's stance, but it is not a pulpit for bashing them either. > Please talk to RMS and the FSF directly as an individual. That's a contradiction: The GNOME Foundation supports the FSF, but doesn't agree with all of the FSF's stances. On top of that: You allow the FSF's stances to be publicized here, but you don't allow any kind of opposition to be represented. By asking people like me to shut up. So I conclude you do agree with the FSF'
Re: GNOME: lack of strategic roadmap
On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 6:18 PM, Philip Van Hoof wrote: > On Sun, 2010-02-28 at 22:59 -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: > > IMHO talking about Facebook and who should demand them to free info is a > > bit out of place here. Please let's not diverge the thread into that > or > > into a battle about how much we should promote Free Software or non > Free > > alternatives. > > > > In my fantasies, the free software movement might be so influential > > that we could make demands and Facebook would have to heed them. In > > reality, we are not in a position to correct the social problems > > caused by Facebook, and I do not suggest making that our goal. > > Why not? > > You changed the social aspect of software development in the past by > inspiring software engineers to follow a certain pro social model. > > Why not do it again for the current generation, and change the game for > the many social community websites being created in this era? > > If the only problem is that the web and its many innovations aren't part > of your generation, then I don't see what the real problem is; > > The social aspects are the same. > > Why isn't the FSF talking with these companies and organizations about > standardizing data about social networks? Why not talk with the European > Commission about getting rules on personal privacy? Why not talk with > Neelie Kroes about competition laws for near-monopolies like Facebook? > > If the FSF would be really be pro 'freedom' of people, they'd do all > that. In fact, you guys are many people's only hope for improvement > here: There are no other organizations even trying at this moment. > > But for that, we need you and the FSF to become more pragmatic. > > Instead, we have to listen to nonsense about Mono. Nonsense about ethics > that people know more about themselves, for themselves, than the FSF > does. And all the nonsense is turning many FSF fans into zealots. > Um, don't confuse Boycott Novell with RMS or the FSF. The FSF has moved to a more pragmatic stance though talking about pragmatism is like talking about right and left - everyone's center is different. As for RMS's stance on Mono, he has come to espouse his own views on something that in the domain of GNOME where as now Facebook is pretty off topic. Stop dragging the GNOME Foundation list down these off topic roads and stop this pissing contest. Everything that can be said has been said and the thread should be taken off list. Feel free to start a Boycott FSF or Boycott RMS site to continue this bike-shedding. > Of course people like me, and Lefty, start saying 'no more'. > > What did you, or anybody, expect? > > Please, change course with the FSF. I'm asking it seriously now. > Please don't drag the Foundation into this. The foundation supports and is supported by the FSF. The foundation don't always agree with the FSF's stance, but it is not a pulpit for bashing them either. Please talk to RMS and the FSF directly as an individual. > But we do have a duty to make sure, if we develop software > > specifically to work with Facebook, that we are not promoting Facebook > > as a consequence. > > This isn't the case at this moment. So there is no problem here. > > > There are many social problems in life, and nobody would expect us to > > eliminate them all. Most of them are not our priority to work on. > > I can't agree with the "most of them are not our priority". > > So you want it to be pragmatic but then you want it to be superman of freedom. > Ain't it FSF's goal to promote freedom for people in general? > No, freedom in software is their focus. Other entities like the ACLU in America are focused on other aspects of freedom. By neglecting the "freedom problems" as introduced by social networking > websites, you are together with the FSF neglecting a important aspect of > this generation's freedoms: > > Privacy. Choice. Access to the data about themselves. > > You're basically saying: "yeah yeah, but that ain't the FSF's priority". > > Who's priority is it then? > > Because that'll be the same FSF of the 2010ties that the FSF was in the > 90ties. The one we need. There are other memebers of the FSF who are involved with this ( http://www.fsf.org/appeal/2009/mako/). Read down a bit about Network services. Unlike some people, the board of the FSF does its research and formulates a position before flying off the handle. > > > > But even when eliminating a problem is not our priority, we should > > make an effort to avoid making it worse. > > By programming annoying warning message boxes? > > So now we are into developing the very same EULA dialog windows that we > hated in the 90ties. And that everybody simply ignores by always > clicking "yes", "ok" or the "whatever" answer? > > > Great. > > > > Cheers, > > Philip > > -- > Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer > home: me at pvanhoof dot be > gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org > http://pvanhoof.be/blog > http://codeminded.be >
Re: GNOME: lack of strategic roadmap
On Sun, 2010-02-28 at 22:59 -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: > IMHO talking about Facebook and who should demand them to free info is a > bit out of place here. Please let's not diverge the thread into that or > into a battle about how much we should promote Free Software or non Free > alternatives. > > In my fantasies, the free software movement might be so influential > that we could make demands and Facebook would have to heed them. In > reality, we are not in a position to correct the social problems > caused by Facebook, and I do not suggest making that our goal. Why not? You changed the social aspect of software development in the past by inspiring software engineers to follow a certain pro social model. Why not do it again for the current generation, and change the game for the many social community websites being created in this era? If the only problem is that the web and its many innovations aren't part of your generation, then I don't see what the real problem is; The social aspects are the same. Why isn't the FSF talking with these companies and organizations about standardizing data about social networks? Why not talk with the European Commission about getting rules on personal privacy? Why not talk with Neelie Kroes about competition laws for near-monopolies like Facebook? If the FSF would be really be pro 'freedom' of people, they'd do all that. In fact, you guys are many people's only hope for improvement here: There are no other organizations even trying at this moment. But for that, we need you and the FSF to become more pragmatic. Instead, we have to listen to nonsense about Mono. Nonsense about ethics that people know more about themselves, for themselves, than the FSF does. And all the nonsense is turning many FSF fans into zealots. Of course people like me, and Lefty, start saying 'no more'. What did you, or anybody, expect? Please, change course with the FSF. I'm asking it seriously now. > But we do have a duty to make sure, if we develop software > specifically to work with Facebook, that we are not promoting Facebook > as a consequence. This isn't the case at this moment. So there is no problem here. > There are many social problems in life, and nobody would expect us to > eliminate them all. Most of them are not our priority to work on. I can't agree with the "most of them are not our priority". Ain't it FSF's goal to promote freedom for people in general? By neglecting the "freedom problems" as introduced by social networking websites, you are together with the FSF neglecting a important aspect of this generation's freedoms: Privacy. Choice. Access to the data about themselves. You're basically saying: "yeah yeah, but that ain't the FSF's priority". Who's priority is it then? Because that'll be the same FSF of the 2010ties that the FSF was in the 90ties. The one we need. > But even when eliminating a problem is not our priority, we should > make an effort to avoid making it worse. By programming annoying warning message boxes? So now we are into developing the very same EULA dialog windows that we hated in the 90ties. And that everybody simply ignores by always clicking "yes", "ok" or the "whatever" answer? Great. Cheers, Philip -- Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer home: me at pvanhoof dot be gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org http://pvanhoof.be/blog http://codeminded.be ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Stormy's Update: Weeks of February 15th and 22nd
Hi; > > There's an IRC log and maybe even minutes, but, hrm, it's not > > readable for me: > > http://live.gnome.org/FoundationBoard/Minutes/IRC20100227 > > > > Yeah I kind of broke the ACL :-). Only Javier Jardón can *read* and > write it. Any admin around? #lalala I fixed the ACLs. Christian ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
