Comment 331 for bug 668415

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 8:16 PM, Mark Shuttleworth
<email address hidden> wrote:
> On 02/20/2013 04:52 PM, Adam Porter wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 12:08 AM, Mark Shuttleworth
>> <email address hidden> wrote:
>>> if the feature was really that important, someone would have
>>> stepped up to do it *properly*.
>> "Properly" as defined by you. You set the bar wherever you want, and
>> if someone doesn't jump high enough, it's not good enough.
>> You want us to use your software, but when we tell you your software
>> isn't meeting our needs, you tell us to fix it ourselves. But then
>> when someone does so, you say that he didn't do it "properly." It
>> isn't hard to read between the lines here. Just be honest and admit
>> that you don't want the feature implemented.
> Just because we disagree is no call to suggest that I'm dishonest.

I felt like you were being dishonest because I felt like you weren't
being forthcoming with your reasoning.

> Here's how I'd frame it. I think it's highly unlikely that you can move
> the launcher to the right, top, or bottom of the screen without tripping
> over lots of other aspects of Unity. On the tablet, we use the bottom
> edge for app controls. Perhaps that won't turn out to be relevant for
> the desktop, but I think it's too soon to rule that out. And we use the
> right edge for the side stage, which will be on both tablet and desktop,
> so that's an awkwardness.

1. You admit that it currently is not relevant for the desktop, but
you insist on NOT ALLOWING users to do this because you MIGHT later
decide to use the edge for something else.

2. You think a potential "awkwardness" is reason to NOT ALLOW users
to customize the UI to fit their needs.

These two points illustrate a fundamental philosophical shift in the
way Unity--and Ubuntu itself--is being developed. Mr. Shuttleworth, I
could switch a few words around, replace Unity with iPhone and Ubuntu
with iOS, and these would sound like Steve Jobs quotes. It should go
without saying that Apple and iOS are by their very nature
antithetical to the FOSS movement and the ideas of user freedom and
users' control over their own systems and software. Yet this is the
direction Unity--and, I fear, Ubuntu--is headed, and it is this
direction which you champion. I am dumbfounded.

> You may have better insights than I. But I've not seen any coherent,
> complete articulation of how it would all fit. Just demands from the
> perspective of folk who are used to a particular workflow. That's fine -
> Ubuntu let's you achieve that with any number of third-party tools.
> That's great, use them, and we'll get along fine.

You're presupposing that "it all" needs to "fit"--whatever that means
to you. You're presupposing that your workflow is superior to that of
these people who *want to use your software*, but find it frustrating
to use because it doesn't fit their needs. And you don't seem to care
that these real people who really have used your software find it
unsuitable for their needs; you're more interested in studies carried
out in artificial environments by researchers--that and your personal

> Now, I like to be wrong, because that's when we learn. Show how it would
> all fit together, and I'll come around.

How can we show that you are "wrong" when you are the judge? What is
"wrong" in this situation anyway? If it "fits" in your opinion it's
"right," and if it doesn't "fit" it's "wrong"?

What I think is "wrong" here is refusing to work with and support
loyal followers who have evangelized and contributed to the project
for years. What I think is "wrong" here is dogmatically marching to
your "vision" to the extent that dissenters must conform or begone.
What I think is "wrong" here is thinking that if you like something
it's right, and if you don't like it it's wrong.

When people were still using horses and carriages, they might have
told Henry Ford that they wanted better buggies; but after people
started driving cars, they would have told him that the seats were
uncomfortable, and he would have listened.