Message: previous - next
Month: February 2012

Re: Re: [trinity-devel] Poll

From: Martin Gräßlin <mgraesslin@...>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 19:14:45 +0100
On Monday 13 February 2012 11:23:29 Calvin Morrison wrote:
> > b) When a developer does come here and asks to unfork one component (kwin,
> > e.g.) for everyone's benefit, the response is pathetic and juvenile, not
> > the sort of thing I expect from mature software developers.
> If anything, Martin Graesslin is "pathetic and juvenile". Every
> message he has sent here has been arrogant and demeaning of our group.
Please remember that I am not a native speaker. It is not my intend to be 
arrogant, though I know that what I write is often considered as being 
arrogant. This is an unfortunate situation as I am an expert in the area I'm 
working in (window management) while the people I address are no experts. In 
such situations it can happen that something sounds arrogant if language 
barriers are involved. I am sorry that you considered some of my comments as 
arrogant, this has not been my intention.

Concerning the demeaning of your group: well, I have nothing to say to it. If 
you consider it this way, it might be an idea to think about what Trinity 
could do to no longer come into situations that pointing out problems is 
demeaning your efforts.

I have never made things up. I pointed out real issues, like the one that twin 
does not start any more under certain circumstances. It's in my opinion a very 
severe issue which has to be pointed out.

Personally I'm always interested in extending my knowledge. I always seek for 
the advice of people more knowledged than I am and I accept their criticism of 
e.g. my code no matter how tough that may be.
> It really blows my mind that he keeps pretending that he has has no
> part in the negativity. This entire thread is a response to his
> attacks (valid or not) on the TDE project.
yes, I consider it as quite bad that such a thread has been started due to my 
blog post. I think it is not the best way to react to the problems I pointed 
out in my blog post. I would have expected that you start to reflect what I 
wrote, to think about whether there might be some truth, to think about 
whether the way Trinity took is the right one.

Trying to find reasons why everything is perfect the way it is, does not 
improve anything. Asking on the Trinity developer list who will continue to 
use Trinity does not help you. Of course everybody here loves Trinity and 
would never use something different. Such a thread is flawed, the conclusions 
you can derive from it are flawed.

One very good way to react to such criticism is not to react instantly. Take 
your time. Reacting instantly makes things mostly just worst. Of course 
everybody was angry when they read my post - I would have felt the same. But 
reacting in anger does not help you. Give it a few days and then start to 
think what of the things I wrote is right, were things can be improved. Think 
about why I reply to these threads on Monday and did not do on Saturday :-)

Just to let you know: I did not write the post and publish it. It took me 
about two weeks from the day when I decided to write the post till I sat down 
and typed. I did not publish instantly, but kept it one more day to think over 
it again, to make sure that nothing gets into the post, what I don't want to 
> He has made several high
> profile blog posts regarding Trinity and  cast it in his own light.
Google tells me I have only written two posts. One I have written in the light 
of very bad publicity thrown on KWin due to the Trinity release. Unreasonable 
and incorrect crap. The second post is the one from Saturday.

Additionally I have written a German article for freiesMagazin to illustrate 
the history of Trinity (how the fork happened) and what users can and cannot 
expect from Trinity. This was a very objective article as I have written it 
for a magazine and they would not have accepted a non objective one.
> That is fine by me, but after saying all of that crap, and then coming
> here and pretending he wants us to use KWin? It's a double standard.
In my first blog post I only criticise that you are forking everything - for 
example KWin. Getting here to undo the fork does not sound like double 
standard to me but is completely in line with what I would like to see for 
Trinity. May I quote my own post:

"I appreciate the idea of the Trinity developers to bring back the KDE 3.5 
desktop experience to those users who really want it. This is a great offer."

Obviously I don't expect that you would start to use KWin any more. I was 
quite aware about that when I wrote the post although I had been contacted by 
one of the Trinity people last weeks to get the KWin thing started. Before 
anyone thinks this is "revenge" because you were not in favor of switching to 
Trinity: that is of course not the case.
> It is clear that the only people using TDE are people who are very
> consciously doing so.
I rather doubt that.
> They are all aware of KDE4, Gnome and other
> projects. I keep trying to say "live and let live" but it doesn't get
> much headway.
This is one of the things I seriously see as a problem. Why should a user who 
wants to use kdesktop/kicker be forced to use twin? Why should a user be 
forced to use tate (assuming you did a s/k/t/g for all KDE applications) even 
if there are much better applications around? Why should a user be forced to 
use the legacy HAL and Qt 3? The technology choices by Trinity are seriously 
flawed as I illustrated in my blog post.

Please see my post as an opportunity to improve Trinity. Once again: if you 
have any questions, I am willing to help you. I am interested in having a 
"classic" desktop provided alongside our primary offerings. I would have never 
contacted you if I would not have been interested in Trinity.

Kind Regards