On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 10:52 PM, Just Fill Bugs <mozbug...@yahoo.com.au> wrote: > Why didn't vi and emacs developers join together and worked on only one true > editor? Maybe there should not be geany, gedit, sublime and whatever other > editors.
Nice proof by contradiction. The thing to proof was: Why single, omnipotent Chinese IME is impossible. > The so called property list are not exactly property list. Those are > functionalities provided by the input engine. The input engine developers > try to come up with clever tricks to speed up user input performance. > Whether or not the tricks were actually clever enough is not Gnome > foundations' job to judge. > > You are killing innovations over an unsolved problem. > > Blocking or selecting authorized "property list" is authorizing whatever > some innovations the developers have are worthy or not. > > Well, I guess that's the trend now-a-day in the Gnome Foundation: We have > the power to authorize how the developers to innovate. But I'm sorry, "640KB > was not enough for everyone." > > Next time, they will audit feature list in vim and clean up vim for the > users to nvi and then to classic vi. Though it may not be related to GNOME Foundation. I still haven't found the point why I need to explain free 'market' V.S controlled 'market' and argue that free 'market' works better, isn't it obvious? If a project show strong preference of controlled 'market', that'd make me and probably other FOSS advocates/contributors in China re-think what's the real point of FOSS adoption. If FOSS can actually put even more restrictions on development than so-called locked-down systems (the open IME ecosystem is established since Windows 95, older versions or other systems at that time not used). Then what's its real point from a secular point of view? Especially for whose who (most of the humans) are not in the OS club. > It's fine to have a default stupid, unusable input method, but limiting on > the innovation of other input engine authors is just dumb. Some key points. Chinese do understand what is third-party IME. Chinese users cannot care less about consistency. (Many popular Windows software in China has their own UI toolkits and skin ecosystems. And Windows built-in IMEs are inconsistent; there are 4 Pinyin flavors for Simplified Chinese and two variants for Cangjie/Quick/Phonetic for Traditional Chinese in Windows 7. Old versions similar, I haven't noticed any criticism on this) Don't get me wrong. I'm not going ethnical. I definitely welcome anyone managed to finish Chinese Wikipedia GNOME entry one paragraph exercise to the IME club. But I was kind offended by the fact some people want to exclusively power of something they don't use and understand due to some hypothetical aesthetic reasons; regardless of whether it can be a serious regression to real users; regardless the ugly nature of the implementation: solving the problem in wrong place and don't bother to contact upstream; regardless sharp philosophical conflicts to what we believe FOSS should be for long. _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list