On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 08:31:28AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 09:15:08AM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> >
> > [...] is bad because people might break the rules?
>
> Any situation that predictibly makes violations of the GPL into standard
> practice is, indeed, bad. That's an indictment of Troll Tech's practices, not
> LyX or QT development by any one developer here. (Unfortunately, such
> criticism is being taken very personally).
First off, let me state that I am a minor player in the LyX game. I mainly
file bug reports, fix occasional bugs, and make sure that LyX compiles on
my favorite OS and compiler combinations. I don't really have an agenda
in any of the recent discussions and I believe I can be fairly objective.
With that said, I don't see much that is being taken personally. There
are some who keep saying, basically, what you are saying is either too
vague to be useful or that your point of view is wrong in substance.
> I have had other issues with GUII, code "clean-up", etc., which obviously and
> vocally became priorities here, for an extended period of time, arresting much
> new feature development.
Do you have any examples? Be as specific as you can.
Are there any features that could have been completed if the LyX team
was not busy cleaning up and re-architecting the LyX code?
Can you be categorically sure that cleaning up and re-architecting was
not the fastest way to new features? (this requires some cost vs. benefit
analysis, comparing the number of hours that would have been spent
maintaining and kludging bad architecture to add features with the
amount of time spent in "cleanup" efforts).
Another factor to keep in mind in the analysis is that LyX, being
essentially a non-commercial project, is not under the market pressures
that supplant the need to "do the right things" in favor of "do the
fast things". LyX developers do have the luxury of spending a bit more
time fixing things or cleaning things up than a lot of us who work
in large corporate environments.
> In this context, a wide range of other ambitions for LyX faded, and
> a number of users and contributors, included myself, distanced ourselves
> from the project.
Again, can you be specific about these "other ambitions"?
> Part of my reason for wading in at this point was to see whether
> the atmosphere had changed.
What is "the atmosphere"? What do you mean exactly?
> The stridency I've observed in just a handful of days on this list, and
> 1.4.0cvs' reimagining of basic user interface controls like the "Layout" menu
> -- in place for years -- without any real change in function, makes me wonder.
How do you define stridency?
For the most part, I have not seen it. Yes, there are people saying that
you are flat wrong, but that seems to me to be about the substance of
the discussion and not about any personal biases.
Regarding the UI: The User Interface is immensely configurable. With
just a little bit of work, the "classic" interface can be made to work
seamlessly.
> I've heard the canard of "feature bloat" from some.
>From whom? What features, specifically are "feature bloat"?
> I'd take a few more menu items over boatloads of Evil Red Text any day.
Please be specific.
List the evil-red-text constructs that you would like replaced
by LyX features and how you would imagine it working.
---Kayvan
--
Kayvan A. Sylvan | Proud husband of | Father to my kids:
Sylvan Associates, Inc. | Laura Isabella Sylvan | Katherine Yelena (8/8/89)
http://sylvan.com/~kayvan | "crown of her husband" | Robin Gregory (2/28/92)
