does Meeks suck ...

On Fri, 2003-02-21 at 14:36, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 09:53:52AM +0000, Michael Meeks wrote: 
> > 	The thing that most deeply concerns me about the "Gtk+ should swallow
> > Gnome" camp, is that one company utterly controls glib/gtk+ - it would
> > be terrible if one company swallowed Gnome.
> I believe in making *technical decisions* that are the right thing.
> That means a single sensible platform that's easy to understand and
> works. If you want to warp the platform into a big mess due to
> paranoid conspiracy theories, stay away from GNOME.

	You have an extremely unpleasant turn of phrase. It's me that wants to
warp the platform into a big mess - perhaps by introducing random
duplication of technology in an undiscussed fashion - based on
un-announced / private conference calls with the Qt developers.

	I guess I'm just a warped conspiriacy theorist, that believes in
warping the platform to my own, private evil ends[1]. You do know that
Mickey Mouse killed JFK !?

> You should consider that maybe someone just *doesn't agree with you*,
> instead of finding it so amazing that someone could consider your
> technical directions wrong, undocumented, unexplained, ill-timed, or
> otherwise misguided, that you are forced to imagine nontechnical
> motivations for disagreeing.

	But wait - my directions are unexplained, undocumented, ill-timed,
wrong and 'otherwise' mis-guided. Hahaha rotfl. you should do stand-up -
why play the ball when you can go for the ad-hominem angle.

	There are always 'technical' justifications for almost anything. eg. 

	* re-writing X: "it's a huge stack full of stuff that we could
	  do in 1/10th of the size" - but wait, it works, it's there
	  now, its a standard - it's competantly maintained - and it's
	  being developed.

	* re-writing gtk+/glib - "no one understands the object system,
	  objects in C suck, using it with threads is appallingly bad,
	  the button order, it wasn't designed with Interfaces, the menu
	  code is too complex ..." etc. - but in fact - much the same
	  arguments apply as for X.

	Then again - incremental improvement is so much less fun - much more
interesting to re-write everything in an orgy of ignorance.

> If someone wants to write a stream API, it's totally inappropriate to
> drag him into your personal vendettas. You want to post a flame, post
> a flame separately and stand behind it. But you better be sure you're
> not throwing stones from the proverbial glass house.

	But wait - this is a mailing list: doesn't that mean that if someone
says something outrageous - I'm allowed to respond.

	But then, perhaps I don't understand mailing lists either, this time I
changed the title to make it more clear the new direction your missive
is taking - HTH.

	I must have gone very wrong somewhere,



[1] - if only you could see my cabal of evil porpoises
 mmeeks gnu org  <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]