On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 15:13:51 -0800 (PST) Darrell Anderson <humanreadable@...> wrote: > > 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. You are saying that Centered suits your already non-default way applications open, not the other defaults. Making Centered the default policy, with no maximised-by-default application, would be terrible. That is the real configuration that matters, because it's the one which would be put as default if Tim listened you. Not your personal one. > > > 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 > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > trinity-devel-unsubscribe@... For additional > commands, e-mail: trinity-devel-help@... Read > list messsages on the Web archive: > http://trinity-devel.pearsoncomputing.net/ Please remember not to > top-post: > http://trinity.pearsoncomputing.net/mailing_lists/#top-posting >