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
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
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
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
#1 in my mind is patently ridiculous, because SLE is a
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
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
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.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help(a)opensuse.org