Message: previous - next
Month: March 2016

Re: [trinity-devel] Re: TDE new logo proposal??

From: Thomas Maus <thomas.maus@...>
Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2016 04:23:36 +0100
On Tuesday 08 March 2016, 22:44 wrote Lisi Reisz:
> On Tuesday 08 March 2016 20:07:51 Thomas Maus wrote:
> > I'm trying to lead a rational discussion here and I gave detailed
> > arguments
> > along this whole discussion thread. Have the kindness to read, consider
> > and
> > eventually falsify them -- the designs are secondary.
> There is no need to be offensive.  

There is no intent to be offensive -- but for me English is not a native 
language, which makes it quite difficult in a heated discussion to hit the 
exactly correct tone.

> I asked why "we" need a new logo.  We
> know what you think and demand that the rest of us think.

So in your perception I'm not part of the "we"?

> Your credentials in Open Source are not relevant to your insistence that
> your opinion has to be taken as incontrovertible fact.

My opinion is my opinion, and by definition a opinion is very obviously not a 
(Even that my opinion is my opinion is not an incontrovertible fact, given 
convincing arguments ...)

But here some facts, I based my conclusions on:

Four surveys of desktop usage from a German Linux magazine. (of course the 
German speaking countries are know for disproportional large KDE usage, so 
there is a bias). The surveys were done 2016, 2014, 2012, 2010 -- thus 
covering enough time to see some developments:

I consolidated this to the following tables, but you might prefer the original 
survey links given above:

	2010	2012	2014	2016
Cinnamon	-	-	4%	9%
Enlightenment	1%	1%	1%	0%
GNUstep	0%	-	-	-
Gnome 2/MATE	31%	14%	4%	4%
Gnome 3	-	13%	12%	19%
KDE 3/Trinity	5%	2%	1%	1%
KDE 4	54%	42%	42%	20%
Plasma 5	-	-	-	19%
LXDE	1%	2%	4%	2%
XFCE	4%	11%	16%	20%
Unity	-	8%	10%	3%
others	5%	8%	6%	7%

Now see how the two champions Gnome and KDE were significantly loosing ground 
with their follies (and as the 2016 survey is from February I expect many 
Plasma5 users yet to loose patience and switch ...)

That shows, IMHO, clearly that many users want to have a classical, stable, 
functional, ergonomic desktop. This lead to a proliferation of desktops -- 
IMHO opinion detrimental, as it binds and splits resources.

XFCE is prominently profiting from this -- not undeserving, as it has massively 
improved since 2011, when I last tried it. While it was clearly inferior to 
KDE3 2011, it is now quite on par with TDE -- lacking in some areas, better in 

Given that -- IMHO -- TDE is still having a competive edge in many areas, the 
interesting questions are: 
* Why does TDE not benefit from the user migration away from Gnome and KDE???
* Especially, why did TDE not soak up the migrating users and soared between 
2010 and 2012 and perhaps 2014, when it was clearly superior to XFCE (which 

My conclusions are known, what are your's? (2nd person, plural -- as would be 
unmistakable in German ;-)

It is by no means bad to be a small desktop, and even small desktops (like 
LXDE or LXQT or even Enlightenment!) are supported as official OpenSuSE 
desktops. That would give Trinity Desktop access to resources -- so that is 
something I would like to try to achieve (especially if we could join forces 
with the remnants of their KDE3.5 team)!

> Moreover you are ignoring the fact that Tim asked me not to proselytise.

I was not knowing this fact -- until now. You mentioned you were asked, but 
not by whom. (But I see not how this fact contributes to the discussion)

> You may feel that _you_ have already answered the questions I asked.  I
> asked them of "us".  Plural, not dual.  I know what you think.  

Probably not -- see below. 

> What about
> all those who have so far said nothing?  What about all those on the users
> list?

They are completely free to voice their opinion, add new arguments and help as 
to identify all chances, risks, pitfalls to find a good decision for the 
project. Actually, I would appreciate if the silent majority would speak.

> You ARE wanting change for change's sake.  You want change because TDE is
> not "modern" enough.  That is change for change's sake.

No, I definitely do not want "change for change's sake" -- as stated often and 
in many variations (I don't know how to express this any clearer in English).
Hopefully you do not want "stasis for stasis's sake".

Because  "stasis for stasis's sake" is as stupid and deadly as  "change for 
change's sake" ...

> The idea of having two completely different logos is IMHO a complete
> non-starter and makes nonsense of having a logo.
> You _will_ lose present users if you go along the track you want. 

You state this as a fact!?

If this is a fact (or even a probable outcome) -- I'll stop immediately.
Actually I considered stopping on the grounds of many intelligent people 
currently wasting a lot of time -- and only your next statement compelled me 
to answer:

> This may, of course, be part of your design.  

This is a serious imputation, far beyond purely offending!

I read, that this project is about "stasis" and "nostalgia" (well, that is 
benevolent rephrasing) in a lot of places, but so far not on the project's own 
Web-site. Maybe I missed something.

If there is no change wanted, please be so kind to state this prominently in a 
mission statement or project charter or whatever the correct and non-
inflammatory term is.

It will surely protect the project from people like me -- in their enthusiasm 
-- doing anything active which could be construed as "foisting" their sinister 
"designs" of "change for change's sake" by chosing "garish deliberately M$-
Windows"-like designs (like blue buttons, blue splash screens, blue background 
-- oops, that is status-quo, sorry, mixed that up, of course sparingly using 
the colors red/green/blue)

> ...
> I actually think that your analysis of the "problems" is completely wrong,
> and largely irrelevant.  

That is fine with me.

Best regards,


In the Internet nobody knows you smell of sulphur ];-)