https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=404465
--- Comment #15 from arcli...@gmail.com <arcli...@gmail.com> --- Because the behaviours demonstrate an irrational defocus from the original bug observation whilst complaining that I am discussing off topic without reading the inability of the code author to recognise basic convention of confirming the system owner's consent to run new instances of their code - described by myself as a minimalist code investment by my description in place of a full system audit to reveal likelihood of low probability of causing system degradation because of critical low resources availability - to protect the system owner from damage to their immediate business needs such as work schedule. E.g. system crash destroying current work, requirement to reboot so disrupting a tight schedule for deadline, etc. Your statement is contrary to the established principles of open source cooperation. This observation requires a test case to work through the principle observation of good practice if not best practice code submission. How much work would you think you would achieve if code installed without your consent and consumed all resources in parallel to your current task and work-flow schedule? If you would choose to ignore this question to favour your own argument, which I do not and did not assume any choice by either yourself or the code author, yours, and their answer would determine the presence of conceptual capacity to engage with the observation as originally presented in Bug#404313. The code author in fact chose to ignore the open possibility to engage with the issue but also demonstrated an emotional response that likewise demonstrated their capacity to feel outrage over their position being challenged, i.e. if their work was seriously compromised, they would not remain unreactive to the fact. Key to their response to "the probe" is that they cannot understand the limit of their personal and code boundaries in systems other than their own. If this principle is likewise not understood by contributors it amounts to the "team intolerance" towards a contributor with an acute sense of "limitation of boundaries" The acute intolerance towards anything that crosses "their own boundaries" despite not making these boundaries clear in anything other than a clan war is transferred as a criticism of the contributor who is challenging these behaviours! As I have already stated : "We live in an age of open source, open attitude, but in order to attain these goals we must learn their nature and change with them." Since this is not able to be discussed by the current group of contributors I have asked the whole set of data is transferred to a peer review by female contributors and preferably by Linux Mint Alexandra Crawford On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 at 04:40, Nicolás Alvarez <bugzilla_nore...@kde.org> wrote: > https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=404465 > > --- Comment #7 from Nicolás Alvarez <nicolas.alva...@gmail.com> --- > - K3b is provided with no warranty ("not even the implied warranty of > fitness > for a particular purpose" such as running on your computer at all). If it > doesn't work the way you want, it's not an "invading object" in your > computer > since you can choose not to use it. > > - Linux Mint is not related to, and has no authority over KDE. They are > independent projects and communities. This is the KDE bug tracker. > > - How can this be about misogyny if your gender is not public information? > > -- > You are receiving this mail because: > You reported the bug. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
