[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Editor Priorities

On Thu, 9 May 2002, Tomohiro KUBOTA wrote:

> > In other words, the policy as proposed doesn't do anything to make life
> > *worse* for CJK, bidi, and Indic users.  It simply fails to make life
> > better for them.  However, this is mainly a job for upstream software
> > developers.  Debian developers are primarily system integrators.
> We, as integrators, now have an easy way to improve equality between
> languages, because there are several editors and other softwares which
> can handle CJK/bidi/... languages.  Why should we avoid giving priority
> to such softwares?

I'll ask the opposite question - why give priority to them, just because
they happen to support multi-languages?  I thing there are several more
important aspects to an editor than that.  If they're in Debian, they can be
pulled down via a task package (or equivalent) for users wanting that
particular language.

> softwares which only supports European languages.  Yes, people
> should be called racist who refuse to support non-European
> languages even though there are easy ways to do so and there
> are no technical problems.
> Anyway, I decided to improve and internationalize terminal emulators.  It
> takes years and now it is partly successful.

So on the one hand, there are easy ways to do so, but it takes years to do
it?  That seems like a *damn* good reason to do it, from my point of view as
a volunteer software developer.  You did it because it matters to you.  I
don't do it because it takes years to do.  Somehow I'm a racist for not
volunteering my time for years of work?  So, I guess anyone who doesn't
spend all their time volunteering for Meals on Wheels is ageist.

> However, in this case, priority in Debian alternative system is
> completely Debian's problem, not upstream problem.  

Yeah, but mandating a particular preference to fuel somebody's agenda is
wrong.  Just like mandating that all emacs packages have a higher priority
than vi packages, or something else equally inane.  The package is there,
after all, and while integration is an issue, mandating priorities is not
the solution.

> It is obvious my idea improves usability for non-European-language-
> speakers.  Also, it is completely Debian's (not upstream's) problem
> and it is easy to achieve my idea.  On the other hand, you didn't
> explain a demerit of my idea which is large enough to compensate the
> merit.  Could you please explain?  Or, do you have any alternative
> proposal?

English is the de facto language.  Yes, support for other languages is a
worthy goal, but that should be achieved by reasonable methods - not pushing
software packages just because they are multilingual.  You want a
multi-lingual text editor?  Choose one out of the many packages available. 
Don't want to?  Get someone to choose the appropriate one, and make it part
of a task package.

#include <disclaimer.h>
Matthew Palmer

To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Reply to: