[kde-solaris] http://solaris.kde.org refesh

[hajma]

2009/7/27 Stefan Teleman <stefan.teleman at gmail.com>:
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 11:17, hajma<tropikhajma at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 2009/7/27 Stefan Teleman <stefan.teleman at gmail.com>:
>>> On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 04:28, hajma<tropikhajma at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> My priorities are:
>>>
>>> *YOUR* priorities ??
>>
>> yes, my priorities. I don't have anybody else's priorities. I devote
>> my own time to the project so what I do I do based on my own
>> priorities.
>
> Really.
>
> So the priorities of the KDE Solaris project do not concern you,
> because you work on this on your own time.
>
> That's an interesting attitude.

this is quite a normal attitude, welcome to the open source world. And
since there's currently no list of priorities cast in stone for the
project, I'm perfecly happy with what I do, I even believe I am not
harming anything.
Your current priorities do not include kde-solaris, so you currently
do not contribute anything directly* except occasional bitching - and
guess what - it's completely fine.
My current priorities were to improve the pages so I sent some
proposal to the list and expected either acceptance or constructive
comments.


*but thanks for the many compilation hints

>
> For your information, everyone involved with this project works on it
> on their own time.
>
>>> ASAP!
>>>
>>> Yes, SIR! I'll get on that right away, SIR!
>>
>> hey, I would fix it myself if I had the powers. I don't have a clue
>> who has them - there is no such information on the pages or it's well
>> hidden. From your replies it seems one of the persons is you, but,
>> unfortunately, you prefer to mutter sarcastic comments to either
>> copy-paste something someone else did or give useful comments.
>> Just let me know if you answered yes to any of the below questions,
>> please and I'll not bother you again.
>>
>> Do you find current state of http://solaris.kde.org acceptable? YES/NO
>> Do you have the time and will to update it? YES/NO
>> Do you mind others updating it, even if that means the pages will not
>> be 150% perfect? YES/NO
>
> I'd say 100% perfect would be enough.
>
> However, the design you have proposed is, in your own words, "crude
> and ugly". That, in my mind, doesn't qualify for 100% perfect.
>
> So the answer is: you're nowhere near 100% perfect, by your own admission.
>
> If you want to be taken seriously, come up with a design which  you
> don't consider "crude and ugly", propose it, let everyone take a look
> at it, and let everyone comment on it.

let me repeat:
right now the pages are ugly and outdated
my proposal would make them ugly and updated

I don't have the time, skills and will to make them Web 2.0 compliant.

everyone can comment the change in this thread, so far we're just
wasting each other's time that could've been spent next to a pool with
a martini in hand