Re: Apologies to gnome-gui if I ever said you guys were flamers...

["Dan \"Effugas\" Kaminsky" <effugas best com>]

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Vogt <tom@lemuria.org>
To: gnome-gui-list@gnome.org <gnome-gui-list@gnome.org>
Date: Wednesday, August 19, 1998 11:15 AM
Subject: Re: Apologies to gnome-gui if I ever said you guys were flamers...


>you didn't understand.(tm)
>
>it would have been YOUR job to find out how screenplays can be done,

So, I shouldn't design, I should code.

> not the
>author's one to find out possible applications for his tool.


So, he shouldn't design, he should code.

Who gets to design, Tom?  Who was supposed to pipe up and say "Heh, this
would be GREAT for a Help System!"


>this also shows in:
>> I'm not concerned if something's been done before.
>
>the correct word would not have been "unconcerned", but "ignorant". answer
>this, please: did you even look around a bit to find out if something like
>xlab exists before making your proposal? or do you love leaving the actual
>thinking to other people? stating "hey, showing things via some playback
>thingy would be cool" isn't that difficult, you know?


No, unconcerned.  My way of looking at it is that it's never been done
right, it's never been integrated universally with an operating system, it's
never been part of the help paradigm, essentially, I was *designing a better
helpsystem* and Xlab came along and showed that the design structure I was
defining wasn't all that impossible.  Am I supposed to look at this like a
bad thing?

>
>
>> So, tell me Tom, did I walk up and put up "wouldn't it be cool for the
>> computer to figure out what the user wants", or did I make a semi
detailed
>> proposal as to how it would operate, how it was different, how it was
>> better, what needed to be worked out, etc?
>>
>> What part of cluehunting appears impossible to you, Tom?
>
>the "I have this cool idea, someone willing to code it, because I can't?"
>part.
>actually, it doesn't appear impossible, just arrogant. the very least you
>can do if you don't want to or cannot code is come up with a detailed
>proposal including (and this is the important part) an analysis on existing
>systems that are similiar, showing the differences, and pointers to tools,
>interfaces or others that might prove useful.


Tom, I devote something like three paragraphs to this, exactly.  I provide
references.  I describe old systems.  My word, I didn't stay holed up in my
room researching and typing.  What happened to all that starry eyed
idealism, that style guides shouldn't be held up waiting for perfection,
that they should be open to the public?  I agreed with you here, is this my
reward?  Being burned by the person who taught me?

>I'm not surprised that the reaction you get from the gnome-coders is very
>much like what you'd get from any big games company with the same kind of
>approach.


You know, it's funny you use this big games analogy, because, like movies,
alot of games suck.  They're not well thought out, they're not fun, they're
just not good.  I can't tell you how many times I've heard "if only they
just hadn't..." and then comes the thing that never would have happened in a
well designed game.

You know what?  For all the gamers who are thrashing Starcraft because it's
just so much more difficult to deal with large armies using 12-person groups
v. as-many-as-will-fit, more power to them.  This was a design decision that
turned out more awful than words can describe.

If Blizzard was treating those who demanded larger groups like the
gnomecoders treated me, it would be an industry scandal.  You forget, Tom.
I'm an outsider to all this stuff.  I'm still a user.  What I describe are
features I want.  If they have already been implemented elsewhere,
wonderful.  Why not in GNOME?  Total Annihilation has build queues.  They're
wonderful.  They should be in Starcraft.  They're not.  Even if I had never
HEARD of TA's build queues, I'd want 'em in Starcraft.  Would it be
inappropriate to request them?