> Nevertheless we offer the possibility to change the sane
> defaults to something 
> else for advanced users like yourself so that you can use
> e.g. a centered 
> placement strategy.

"Sane" according to whom? What might seem "sane" to you is not always "sane" to others.

> I quite agree. That's why centered is *not* a useful
> placement strategy. It 
> requires users to move their windows to have it useable.
> This is the worst 
> thing which could happen.

Not really. I have used Centered for years. Here is a difference: I configure most apps to open maximized. Those few that I open in non-maximized mode typically get opened for a few moments and then closed. So for me, Centered is useful.

> Furthermore I have the complete confidence of our bug
> tracking software. We 
> have millions of users reporting hundred of bug reports
> each year to multiple 
> parts of our window manager. But reports to the placement
> strategy? Feature 
> requests? Hardly any. I am involved in multiple KDE related
> support areas 
> watching for window manager related topics: nothing about
> placement.

When people have an option to change a default they do just that. There is no "bug" to report.

> sorry, what a bullsh*** I cannot tell you how arrogant I
> find this statement. 
> It's this complete utter non-sense I have seen here more
> than once on this 
> list and elsewhere with the opinion that KDE developers are
> all assholes not 
> caring about their users. It's such a stupid thing to think
> that KDE 
> developers pretend to "know better". Such nonsense makes me
> really angry and I 
> really have to think about whether I want to continue to
> offer my help to the 
> Trinity project.

Where did I write "KDE developers"? I wrote "developers." That you jumped to this conclusion is interesting.

Regarding your help with the Trinity project, please point me to anything that you have contributed. Not to KDE3 but to Trinity.

> *sigh* Ego is never a reason why something is the default.

Really? Never?

> And yes if you 
> write that you consider ego as a reason for defaults, I
> consider this as an 
> insult (I have not been involved when the default for this
> option has been 
> set) and are convinced that you consider KDE developers to
> be stupid as you 
> quite nicely highlighted with various side notes in your
> mail.

Where did I call KDE developers stupid? Which side notes? I have disagreed with some of their decisions, but I ask you to show me where I called the people stupid.

> I would appreciate if you could use a constructive manner
> to discuss and I 
> think you should appoligize towards the KDE developers you
> insulted in your 
> mail, e.g. the quite nice Kate developers who I know
> personally.

Please show me the insults I made to KDE developers.

Darrell