Philip TAYLOR (Webmaster, Ret'd) wrote:
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
Philip, perhaps it might help to consider the SeaMonkey developers not as a group of developers who are trying to produce a product that will sweep all before them, but as a group of *USERS* who are trying to produce a product that will do what *they* want, and you and I get to use the result of their efforts for free.
If they do the development you/I want, great. If not, you/I may need to find some other solution!
-- Daniel _______________________________________________ support-seamonkey mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
