On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 12:58:30PM -0500, John A. Sullivan III wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-01-24 at 09:01 -0500, Katheryne Draven wrote:
> > On 1/23/11, David C. Rankin <drankinatty@...> wrote:
> <snip>
> > I think we need to focus first on the parent directories (Office or
> > Desktop Publishing, Tools, Utilities, etc etc) then work on the
> > subdirectories. I think the apps should help us determine what
> > subdirectories are needed. I urge the use of proper computer
> > terminology, avoiding the use of "MS Terms". We should mean to
> > education as well, after all knowledge is freedom (among other good
> > things).
> > 
> > With regard to "mytools", it smacks too much as a homage to MS, with
> > its "My this" and "My that", but in the end its not my decision. Its
> > clearly something Trinity as a whole must make. I do urge against the
> > use of MS terminology. I understand the belief that if its familiar,
> > it will make the use more comfortable. That, however, has not been my
> > eXPerience :). Users who leave windows for Linux cringe when they see
> > references to it. They're finally free of their master, why would they
> > wish to build a shrine to it? The use of MS terms, also reinforces the
> > belief that Linux is just a second rate Windos wannabe.
> > 
> > OH BLAST! Where did this soapbox come from??!!
> > 
> <snip>
> <grin> I'd be a little careful of the soap box, though.  I have little
> respect for Microsoft practices but, as someone on the front lines of
> Windows -> Linux conversions, familiarity is critically important.
> People have businesses to run and could care less about educating
> themselves (rightfully).  They just want to be able to drive the car
> without knowing how it works.  So, where something is functional (folder
> vs. directory) we might be able to make the case (frankly, folder is
> probably more familiar to those who consider a directory structure
> analogous to a filing cabinet while directory makes much more sense to
> IT types) but, where it's simply a name, we could call it lampshade for
> all I care but keeping things familiar remove possible stumbling blocks
> to adoption. Office politics can be mighty powerful and if the opponents
> are all crying, "it's all different and we don't have time to learn it,"
> they can turn the tide on a conversion effort.  I vote for familiarity
> even if it makes me cringe.  Thanks - John 
>

I think the KDE 3 -> KDE 4 disaster has much to do with a kind of take-over
by ms-centric thinking. Sure, hard to quantify, but with KDE 3 I always had the
feeling it moves in principle into the right direction, while with KDE 4 this
basic trust is completely lost (on a daily basic --- I have to use it under
various circumstances). 

More concretely, names like "my ..." are infantil. Anything which is worth
something is about doing the right thing, not about doing something to gain power
(and "keepings things familiar etc." is basically that). Sure people can go
for the power, but was that the starting point of Trinity (I hoped it would
have something to do with the "right thing")?

If the argument is about what that "right thing" actually is, sure, that's not
so easy, but just relating to the status quo and following it is just opportunism,
which even pays out only for very few (the rest fights for the coins thrown into
the pack).

My hope of Trinity would be that it would be a bit of a radical spearhead
(at least radical in the sense of quality, and in the sense of not giving up
on what KDE 3 achieved).

Oliver