This is my new constructive idea.

Andrew Rodland arodland at
Sat May 19 20:12:53 EDT 2007

On Saturday 19 May 2007 06:48:29 pm you wrote:
> Andrew Rodland wrote:
> > Reopen, then close it as "fixed"
> > when you can honestly say you did. Or close it as "wontfix" to tell the
> > world in plain terms that you don't think you need to serve your users.
> This ticket will not be reopened.  It should not have been closed as
> invalid; instead it should have been closed as duplicate.  Invalid vs.
> duplicate doesn't much matter for the purposes of this argument though.
> Reading over that ticket proves that like everyone else who complains about
> this, you're not taking the time to consider any of the arguments we as
> contributors and developers have made justifying the changes.

It's not a duplicate. It's not about prpl icons. Yes, the current icons are 
fuzzy and indistinct, and make the program less useful than it was before, 
but it's not about that. It's about years of tearing things out. Recall Larry 
Wall's "waterbed theory" of complexity. There's a minimum level of complexity 
in any system, and beyond that point you can only drive complexity out in one 
place by increasing it in another. Gaim/Pidgin has long since blown past that 
minimum, aggregating "simplifications" that make the _user's_ task more 
complex with every change. It's about tearing out the "send" button, refusing 
to map keys like any normal app, sending people to text config files for 
tasks that should be easy, crippling the status selector, nuking the prpl 
icons, replacing _all_ of the icons with indistinct pastel blobs that give no 
hint as to their meaning (ooh, it's a square and a circle!), replacing "Send 
As" with the less capable "Send To", replacing "Auto Login" with "Enable" 
without considering whether it could be painfully tedious on a shared 
profile, and a hundred more things. It's about the IRC being openly hostile 
towards users and closed-minded towards contributors. It's about this 
conversation right here.

> I firmly believe that the Pidgin community, including users,
> contributors, and developers, would do much better if discontented people
> actually exercised the rights I mentioned above instead of wasting our time.

As to the right to a fork, I agree. A fork is posible, and even likely. I'm 
trying to keep you from wasting _your_ time. A fork means duplication of 
effort, and a fork of a well-established project experiences friction even if 
it's a vast improvement. My request is nothing more than, look around you at 
what users _want_ and obviate the need for a fork (vastly preferable), or 
step aside and let it happen without the friction.

Anyway, I'm done. I won't make any more of this. I can see that I haven't 
caught the ear of anyone who honestly believes that they can improve.


More information about the Devel mailing list