Re: Bug#283578: ITP: hot-babe -- erotic graphical system activitymonitor
On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 12:47:32 -0600, John Goerzen <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
> On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 12:26:26PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> > Nobody objects to the CPU monitor itself. The objection lies
>> > with the included image, not with the code. Remove that image
>> > and I don't think there'd be any complaint.
>> If the program works well, and depicts cpu usage, then the the
>> image can change the aesthetics, not the utility. In my eyes, you
>> have just blown all arguments of uselessness to smithereens.
> No, it appears you have just supported it.
For people lacking logic, perhaps.
> If you contend that the image has no impact on the utility, then let
> us just replace the image and be done with it.
Sure. create all the alternative packages you want. Same
utility. You just do not get to impose your aesthetics and mores on
> Or do you claim that aesthetics has no utliity?
Orthogonal, really. Things can be useful and butt ugly. Or
they can be pretty and useless. Aesthetics does play marginally into
whether I use a program, but not often.
That which is not good for the swarm, neither is it good for the bee.
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C