Am Freitag, 7. August 2009 17:00:11 schrieb Jim Henderson:
At least it would be a consistent line of argumentation for all subjective points, such as wich DE is better etc. Not so for objectively measurable points like user numbers.
I don't understand what you're trying to say. It seems to me that what you're trying to say is that it's OK for the KDE camp to use this argument to get their way, but not OK for the GNOME camp to use this as a defense against the change.
Absolutely not, and it's hard to read that into it. If one claims that pre-selecting one or the other hurts that community, it is valid for both or none in any situation. Pick your side and stay with it. However, if one wants to have a pre-selected desktop, which is a completely different question, one has to make a choice. that choice cannot be based on subjective arguments, such as "which desktop is better" but only on objective ones.
That seems inherently unfair, but so does this whole idea that giving KDE equal treatment isn't fair, but giving KDE preferential treatment (in the form of a default selection in the installer) somehow is. "Fair" in and of itself implies a form of equality, so calling an equal situation "unfair" and an unequal situation "fair" doesn't parse for me.
Indeed, yet further down...
No moreso than Kubuntu sends an anti-GNOME message to Ubuntu users. SLE is a derivation of openSUSE. That it prefers GNOME over KDE isn't IMHO any more significant than any other distro having a derived distribution that uses a different package set or desktop environment.
Why would the "treat them equally" stop there? Your argumentation is not valid in my opinion since there is no KDE derivation like SLE, hence there is a negative message sent to KDE from the SLE people. If there was, I would agree with you.
Of course someone who wants to see this go through would see my point as invalid - because it invalidates the desire to have the choice pre-made that you want. That is hardly surprising to me. ;-)
There's no GNOME derivation of Ubuntu like Kubuntu, so obviously it's invalid to look at Ubuntu in that way either, right?
...you try to get away from your own argument. If there is a derivation that defaults to Gnome there has to be a derivation that defaults to KDE. Anything else is not equal and hence unfair. Yet here you suddenly come up with an exception to the rule to justify SLE. If neither SLE nor openSUSE would have any defaults, it would also be equal and hence fair. Yet that is not the case. It's simple maths. Ubuntu is a Gnome default, Kubuntu is a KDE default, Xubuntu is a XFCE default, all treated equally. All get one default. SLE is a Gnome default, openSUSE has no default, KDE Live CD is a KDE default, Gnome Live CD is a Gnome default. Two defaults for Gnome and one for KDE. And SLE gets extra resources, so it's not like SLE would simply be a second Gnome Live CD. But hey, maths is invalid and 2 == 1.
There is a KDE Live CD, yet there is a Gnome Live CD as well, so they cancel each other out. Yet there is only one SLE and it gets extra resources. So how come this is not prefering one over the other?
SLE is a derived distribution. There are two possible views of this:
1. SLE's userbase is important here, in which case we have to consider the install base of SLE when comparing GNOME to KDE installations for openSUSE
2. SLE's userbase isn't important here and the fact that Novell made a corporate decision on the DE for its derived distribution based on openSUSE is irrelevant
Ah, I see. There had to be a decision for SLE, an extra product which gets extra resources. the decision was to default to Gnome. That decision, to prefer one of them is yet irrelevant and does not send a message? Come on, that's too obvious. If that was true, making a decision for opensuse would not send a message either, because both are products, claiming that SLE is less important is really lame, but I'll get to that later on. It's exactly what I mean. Arguments and consequences of making a decision that are valid for openSUSE are denied for SLE and vice versa, that is not consistent.
#1 in my mind is patently ridiculous, because SLE is a derivation of openSUSE.
I guess derivation is the argument you need to hold your claim, since without it you could not make 2 == 1. If SLE was not a derivation the decision would suddenly be more important and sending a message? So what makes the derivation that much less important?, actually equalling zero, since anything else would not sum up to 1 = 1, i.e. equality and fairness. So how can we measure importance? I guess in a business world and Novell is about business, money, i.e. resources, is a good measurement for what you think it important to you. Pre-selecting KDE in openSUSE does not take any money from Gnome and it does not add any money to KDE. Yet according to you it would send a message. Producing a Gnome defaulting derivation and investing extra resources into that project does however not send a message. Because putting money into something, e.g. a derivation, does not really mean anything and is irrelevant...
But if you want to apply that "bias" from SLE, then you also have to include those installations in the analysis of which desktop is the most popular for openSUSE. You can't cherry-pick the elements of #1 and #2 above that favour your position and ignore the implications of those cherry-picked statistics.
This is really lame, honestly. But thanks for showing the message that obviously. Adding the numbers of a product that defaults to x to the numbers of a product that does not default to anything ─ no there is no bias in that, perfectly valid it is! I guess I give up, since it's hopeless to discuss as long as people apply double standards and make excuses to justify that what is valid for product A does not apply to product B, not even the tiniest bit. Sven -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org