Last Tango in fdo (was Re: Tango, Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Desktop)
rich at xmelegance.org
Thu Nov 10 16:05:38 PST 2005
On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 10:36:37AM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 11:20:53PM +0000, Richard Moore wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 10:03:06AM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > > Why?
> > Because, as Travis intimated, what is being said about Tango does not
> > reflect its true relationship with freedesktop.org.
> So go out there and correct these misrepresentations.
> > > Must I also yell from the rooftops that anything in Open Clipart isn't
> > > necessarily 'the fd.o position' because it doesn't agree with several
> > > peoples' ideas on styling?
> > The only mention of freedesktop in the openclipart homepage is a note
> > saying where it is hosted - hardly the same.
> > [various off the wall examples deleted]
> I don't see how they're 'off the wall' ...
> > > (Pet peeve: it's freedesktop.org, not free.desktop.org.)
> > Well, if I'm abreviating Free Desktop Organisation, it's f.d.o.
> > do we need a spec for this? :-)
> FDO, surely.
Fine, FDO it is.
> > > > As I said earlier in this thread, currently people's perception of
> > > > what f.d.o does is currently contradicted by the fdo web site. If this
> > > > isn't fixed then fdo is acting against its own aims.
> > >
> > > Interesting assertion.
> > Surely you agree that having the purpose of freedesktop.org misunderstood
> > cannot help its aims.
> I think that would be the best thing anyone could do for fd.o right
> now, and I wish it were so.
Could you clarify this? Are you really saying that having the purpose
of FDO helps?
> > From the website:
> > 'Unlike a standards organization, freedesktop.org is a "collaboration
> > zone" where ideas and code are tossed around, and de facto
> > specifications are encouraged.'
> > Except, that's not how it is often represented. This in turn harms its
> > use as a forum for collaborating.
> So why don't you go out there and take on any misrepresentations you
> see? I don't see what's stopping you, honestly. The wiki has said the
> same thing for years, which seems to be as solid an authority as anyone
> can appeal to here, so surely that's force enough to back you up.
> Bored now,
Ok, well I guess that we should stop because you're bored?
If I wasn't bored with trying to make this argument myself do you think
I'd bother to write about it here? I'm getting the feeling that this list
might as well be removed for all the good it does.
More information about the xdg