https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=324234
1...@gmx-topmail.de changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |1...@gmx-topmail.de
--- Comment #5 from 1...@gmx-topmail.de ---
First of all: I miss this feature, too. Really! Every day, when I use my laptop
with a mouse connected, I miss this. Because I have loads of open windows, on
different workspaces, and from time to time I want to have an easy way to clean
up after a few days of work. Show all windows, this is not needed anymore, that
too, click, click, click and so on.
Middle-click any window in the overview would be the PERFECT solution to solve
the job.
First of all, I wanted to open a wish-suggestion-report to add this feature to
KDE. But sadly I discovered this discussion. This argument. These opinions.
Full of emotions. Full of hate. Full of childish behavior.
I've studied computer since, and after reading all arguments concerning this
issue, I'm really worried. Worried about Martin Gräßlin arguments.
@Martin Gräßlin:
You said (in the in #1 linked report):
"Sorry wontfix. As can be seen in the review request the action is seen as
destructive and has been removed deliberately as there is an explicit action to
close a window. Re-adding would introduce the same problems which were the
reasons to remove it."
Using that argumentation, you should ban "rm -rf", too. Why to remove files
forced recursively, if you could remove them file by file explicit using their
file names, and use rmdir to remove empty directories?
BTW: middle-click on any title bar closes the window, too. And that is
something that is not configurable.
To be honest, I'm disgusted by your comment:
"I don't think I have to justify the decision. The feature had been added by me
(9551c94e7c460efb3b0fd9ccb60472311ff0bf16) in the first place and it has been
removed by me (f2b7ad693e8c4ef59093287473fb07a3098775bc)."
Well, KDE is free software. Yes, this feature had been added by you, but it is
NOT your right to remove it without any justification, just becouse you don't
like it. If you don't like it, your arguments should be strong enough to
survive any discussion. And if not, your arguments have not been strong enough.
This is what I mean with childish behavior. "This is my toy, and if I want to
remove it I can remove it and it is mine so I don't I have to justify why I
destroy it". Disgusting. Really.
THIS is destructive behavior, form you. Destructive behavior to the spirit of
free software. To give, not to destroy!
It should be the users choise to enable this. It is the philosophy of any UNIX
software to allow the user to do everything (destructive) he wants to do.
Teading the other bugs and discussions, it seems as this is some kind of
private argument between Martin Gräßlin's private opinions and the rest of the
user base. Unfortunately the argumentation was with full of emotions.
Personally, I'm worried if I read in any free software an argument that says
"I've gave it to you so I can remove it whenever I want". That is destructive,
indeed.
Back to topic: Any environment, where KDE can be run, is a native multi-user
environment. So every user can (and must) have its own account, settings,
configuration - even if it is just a guest account - and sould be able to
configure its behavior as he wants to be. And if I want to be able to
middle-click-close a window, you should leave this decision to me.
"I don't think I have to justify the decision." is the thing, that is
destructive to anyone that uses KDE. Because it makes KDE a plaything of some
contributors. Something you cannot rely on.
Do you want to be KDE to be something you cannot rely on? Because features are
removed because of personal opinions without justification or discussion?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
