El vie, 19-03-2010 a las 00:18 +0000, personman escribió: > OK. Fair warning, this is long as hell, but there were some ideological > differences that I felt needed to be addressed. This is a reply to Mark > which is probably too way long to justify his reading it, but I'm > posting it anyway. > > >We all make Ubuntu, but we do not all make all of it. In other words, > we delegate well. We have a kernel team, and they make kernel decisions. > > Seems reasonable enough, assuming they are reasonably open-minded > individuals, who take the ideas of others in to consideration, > particularly their users. > > >You don't get to make kernel decisions unless you're in that kernel > team. > > If by "that kernel team," you mean, everyone who has ever filed a bug > report or mentioned an oops, or tested SOMETHING or any of the various > other cooperative activities between users and developers that have > given us the kernel we have today over the last 18 years or so, I might > even agree with you here... > > >You can file bugs and comment, and engage, but you don't get to second- > guess their decisions. > > Now that is where, IMO, you are completely wrong. NO ONE is above being > second-guessed. Not a president, not a king, not Linus Almighty, nor God > himself. (Who, incidentally, I don't believe exists, and if he did, > should be overthrown.) > > I'm not going to call you a dictator because that is extreme, and a word > obviously widely-viewed as being a personal attack. I will say, it seems > to me your thought process is indicative of an authoritarian mentality. > > Why should it not be? You're a CEO... That is the job. I personally > don't believe in the authority principal... This does not mean I reject > all authority. The Anarchist Mikhail Bakunin put it well. It is long, > but hopefully, enlightening. I've offered a brief summary in my own > words that follows this, feel free to skip ahead... > > "Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such a thought. > In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker; > concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult that of the architect > or engineer. For such or such special knowledge I apply to such or such > a savant. But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor the > savant to impose his authority upon me. I listen to them freely and with > all the respect merited by their intelligence, their character, their > knowledge, reserving always my incontestable right of criticism and > censure. I do not content myself with consulting authority in any > special branch; I consult several; I compare their opinions, and choose > that which seems to me the soundest. But I recognize no infallible > authority, even in special questions; consequently, whatever respect I > may have for the honesty and the sincerity of such or such an > individual, I have no absolute faith in any person. Such a faith would > be fatal to my reason, to my liberty, and even to the success of my > undertakings; it would immediately transform me into a stupid slave, an > instrument of the will and interests of others." > > To summarize: I will defer to the authority of experts, but voluntarily, > and not by force. > > I admit, that sometimes the authority of expertise is a legitimate > authority. This is why Linus writes my kernels rather than Bob down the > street... or why if I get a tumor the size of grapefruit growing out of > my head, I will see a neurologist...rather than Bob down the street. > > What sticks in my craw, is what exactly defines who is an expert on an > aesthetic issue like button placement? Is this a realm where a kernel > hacker has much more authority than Joe User and their Ma and Pa? > > Considering your argument was essentially an appeal to authority on the > basis of expertise, I think this is a valid question. > > >We have a security team. They get to make > >decisions about security. You don't get to see a lot of what they > >see unless you're on that team. We have processes to help make > >sure we're doing a good job of delegation, but being an open > >community is not the same as saying everybody has a say in > >everything. > > It is actually. It doesn't mean you have to listen of course, but > everyone DOES get a say. I'd imagine you are realizing this now, if you > haven't before. > > >This is a difference between Ubuntu and several other community > >distributions. It may feel less democratic, but it's more > >meritocratic, and most importantly it means (a) we should have > >the best people making any given decision, and (b) it's worth > >investing your time to become the best person to make certain > >decisions, because you should have that competence recognised > >and rewarded with the freedom to make hard decisions and not > >get second-guessed all the time. > > I think the idea that democracy and meritocracy are mutually exclusive > to any degree is an incorrect one... If anything, they are mutually > beneficial. > > If they weren't, you wouldn't be using Debian as a base, or the Linux > kernel as a core. > > Again this goes to my critique of the authority principal, that > somewhere, some guy, some team, knows what is best, and everyone else > needs to follow. > > This idea is demonstrably false by the fact that we have a thriving open > movement to begin with. Where decisions have been made cooperatively, > rather than handed down from above. > > If the "best" way was subservients reporting to bosses who call the > shots, Linux would be a complete failure, and it isn't. > > It is the people who decide the merit. You've said as much in some of > your posts in this thread. (Something along the lines of, 'people will > vote with their feet,' I'm admittedly paraphrasing.) > > >It's fair comment that this was a big change, and landed without > >warning. There aren't any good reasons for that, but it's also > >true that no amount of warning would produce consensus about a > >decision like this. > > Maybe the functionality introduced in the top-right corner will amaze > and astound us all... There were a lot of doubters during KDE's overhaul > w/ version 4. I personally saw limitations, but also merits. It has been > my desktop of choice for some time now... since 4.1 or 4.2. > > >No. This is not a democracy. Good feedback, good data, are welcome. > >But we are not voting on design decisions. > > I'm actually not a democrat. Or more accurately not JUST a democrat. I'm > an Anarchist, which means I'm well aware of the shortcomings of > democracy, but also well aware that it is usually a better alternative > to hierarchy. It is the spirit of cooperation and solidarity in > democracy that separates it from the archaic forms of oppression of our > past, such as monarchy, oligarchy, or the various forms of > totalitarianism, left or right. > > As I've alluded to earlier, I actually run Kubuntu, rather than Ubuntu. > So, at least currently, I'm not affected by this dilemma. I will say, > having moved from Debian, there are things about *ubuntu that I like > very much: > > I like recent packages, even if I have to run development versions to > get them. > > I like a fast boot experience. > > I like being reasonably confident, that if I hear about some cool new > program, I can do a quick search in synaptic, and install it most of the > time. > > In the event that I cannot, I like that many software developers make > *ubuntu packages available as standard operating procedure. > > There are things I do not like about *ubuntu: > > I don't particularly like having to run a complete development desktop > just to get theora 1.1, or other recent applications, though I can > understand to some degree, the reasoning behind it. > > I am not particularly thrilled that Ubuntu is infected with mono. > Admittedly I'm going by what I hear, as I've not run gnome in some time. > > Also, I'd like to defend fewt. Tabloids make stuff up. He quoted you > exactly. > > Out of context? This entire thread is the context. > > All he did was concentrate the authoritarian mentality I referred to > earlier... and yeah... it sounds bad. Because it IS bad. > > To be perfectly honest, I don;t really care where the buttons are... I'd > prefer where I'm used to, but I can adjust. What bothers me, is the > mentality behind the decision making process. > > As I said, this is long as hell. I don't expect a response. But maybe > think about it? If you think I have 10% of a good point, maybe all this > writing will have been worth it. > > -Andy > AnarchismToday.org > > MCP, programmer, web-designer, philosopher, and about a million other > things.
+1 realy impresive the community put ubuntu in the place where is today, and can make it go away daniel palanas.a -- [light-theme] please revert the order of the window controls back to "menu:minimize,maximize,close" https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/532633 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
