Stanimir Stamenkov wrote:
> Sun, 07 Aug 2011 10:37:53 +0100, /Philip TAYLOR (Webmaster, Ret'd)/:
>
>> Putting a reasoned argument on behalf of those who prefer stability
>> and security to non-essential change is not "bitching"; it is
>> offering a constructive criticism that should be interpreted
>> as such.
>
> The problem with the so called "constructive criticism"
> I see widespread in this group, is it doesn't help keeping
> the SeaMonkey product alive, most importantly, and then usable,
> both related to the Mozilla platform dependency remark I've
> given previously.
I agree that some of the critiques have lacked focus; but in
general, I believe that those who are most vocal in criticising
the current changes in Seamonkey development and release are
also amongst those who are most deeply concerned that Seamonkey
/should/ remain alive and usable : they are, in the main,
people who (for better or worse) have come to depend on Seamonkey,
and who are genuinely afraid that recent changes do not bode
well for the future.
What we need (IMHO) is a genuine debate between users and
developers; a little less sniping, and a better appreciation
by each side of the wishes of, and constraints on, the other
side, would go a long way towards ensuring a viable future
for this most valuable suite of software.
Philip Taylor
_______________________________________________
support-seamonkey mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
