[Kde-accessibility] OpenOffice and KDE4 Accessiibilty [was: Orca/KDE Integration]

[Éric Bischoff]

Le Vendredi 8 Septembre 2006 17:35, Bill Haneman a écrit :
> Eric:
>
> Sorry, but I felt that it was you who adopted a "harsh tone" first.

I'm sorry if you felt offended by my remark about my not installing products 
with pango dependancy. I hesitated before writing down that remark, but I 
thought it would be understood if I described that GNOME users would do 
exactly the same for products with kdelibs dependancy.

I'm sorry if you felt offended by my saying that GObject is bad design. I do 
think that though, and I can explain you why, if you are interested. [And 
while I am at it: It is possible to write a good C++ library that exports a C 
API. GObject is no fatality.]

I'm sorry if you felt offended that I said that Java brings problems. I'm not 
the only one who thinks that, but I realize it must be hard to hear when you 
have an address ending in "@sun.com" ;-). [In fact, Java rocks! I love Java. 
What is wrong IMHO is to make other massively distributed products like OOo 
depend on Java.]

I am sorry if you felt I had a harsh tone for any other reason I cannot think 
of right now.

But let me describe the way you speak to people:

First, you doubt my understanding. You make very wrong assumptions about my 
criticizing ATK, while I did not even mention ATK in my message.

Second, you doubt my honesty. You make very wrong assumptions about my 
inventing arguments. I had verified that there was at least one 3rd level 
dependancy before writing that. [Although now I look at it with more detail, 
I realize that you are right, in the case of ATK, the set of dependant 
packages gets closed rather quickly. Especially without pango].

I can ensure you that if I have sounded harsh, it was not intentional. I have 
a few ideas about good sofware design, and sometimes I express them with too 
much conviction. But I do not make assumptions about other people's thoughts, 
intelligence, or honesty. Please do stop making assumptions, and life will be 
much easier.

> I think my previous message should put the question of dependencies to
> rest, as there is only the glib/gobject one.

It was my point in my previous message, yes. That whole thing seems to boils 
down to the GObject question.

If we are to reach the same technical conclusions, why can't we have a 
peaceful, technical, discussion?

> I apologize for starting 
> the confusion about pango by forgetting that the trivial dependency had
> already been removed.

I also wanted to say that you mentioned pango first, but since you do it 
here... ;-)


-- 
La monoculture informatique fragilise le système d'information, elle est aussi 
toxique pour les données de l'entreprise. (Guy Brand)