https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=361411
User mack@ifis.cs.tu-bs.de added comment
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=361411#c5
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Mack 2008-04-16 01:43:24 MST ---
Pardon - I appreciate your work, but I don't like the direction, OpenSUSE and
other more independent parts (like Gimp or else) are developing into. There is
a clear tendency to implement Linux as a windows clone with all it's drawback
like unspecific or unclear messages, more restrictive behaviour (e.g., one
cannot move maximized windows any longer, even when the window is maximized to
one screen only on a multiple screen setup), more complicated interfaces (e.g.
the Gimp file dialog comes to my mind), testing probably only on stand alone
machines or in single user and single screen desktop configurations etc. pp.. I
cannot stop this direction. And reporting bugs takes quite some time as well.
So when reporting one bug, in the next openSUSE version I find two new
annoyances for this.
I do understand your argumentation, but I'm engaged in some other projects (for
free) as well, and I have to keep our machines running here at work, so I don't
have so much time for reporting bugs or annoyances. And this even more, when
the effect of seems to be very limited.
Your argument 'people can understand it, when they get some basic knowledge
about it' might be ok. But when someone is writing something like 'this [...]'
and does not give any reference point, 'this' is referring to, the text tends
to create confusion and not clarity. When someone is writing about two
problems, but three problem sections are following, he is limiting information,
even though the text is to give information. When someone is writing about
'invalid packages', he assumes, it is clear, what an invalid package might be.
But this term is at least ambiguous. So why is it done like this? Information
is to increase clarity and not to hide clarity. I did not have any problems
understanding unresolved package dependencies or other similar installation
messages in version 7 to 9 of SuSE, so why did SUSE 'improve'(???) the messages
in newer versions to a complete mess? Is it such a problem to tell people: -
this package (A) depends on package (B), but package (B) is not available for
this computer architecture (C)? Well, no, the text speaks about resolvables,
which is a word invented by SUSE (part of bug 292309); it speaks about 'invalid
packages' - whatever this might be; it speaks about 'installable providers',
which seems to be nonsense as well; it refers to something not mentioned
anywhere; etc. pp..
My point is: the translation I reported the bug on might have had the chance to
give an (easily) understandable information, but it failed. If the english text
also does not give an understandable information, one should / might propagate
it upwards. But the translation does not even provide a completely correct
german syntax or semantics. So it seems to be valid to keep in here in the
translation group.
And yes: it's not a technical problem, so one can continue working with
openSUSE. And if everyone thinks this and other similar unclear messages are
ok, then one can leave it like this. Then it's the direction, openSUSE (and
others) are developing to. It heavily reminds me of Windows messages, but when
one likes to clone Windows, it seems to be valid to clone the information
hiding of Windows as well. Maybe I will join the translation group sometime in
future, so other people can complain about my translations as well, but for
now, I won't. And I know: whatever one does, someone will be able to criticize
it. So just take my criticism as a hint and not as something beyond that.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.