[Fwd: Re: Two rather negative articles about Ubuntu]

[Peter Whittaker]

On Mon, 2006-03-07 at 18:36 +0200, Mario Vukelic wrote:
> You exaggerate if you say, "before you do anything important".

Yes: I was using the exaggeration as rhetorical device, to make a point.

> > being able to remove bits whose absence will later bite you
> > in a tender part is, IMHO, a huge usability bug.
> 
> I think I understand what you're getting at, but as soon as my distro of
> choice removes my ability to remove whatever I want (after proper
> warnings), even if it thinks it will me cause problems, I guess I need
> to look for another one. It's like Windows telling me I can't remove IE

I'm entirely in agreement. There are at least four possible states: 4,
it cannot be removed; 3, there are big scary warnings; 2, there are no
warnings; and 1, there is an active indication that it is safe to
remove.

Trouble is, we are at #1 now. At worst, we should be at #2, though #3
would be better, and sufficient. Especially if we had the revers-O-matic
tool I described earlier.

Being at #1 is definitely a bug (highish severity, IMHO). #2 would be
much lower severity, but still buggish.

pww

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/sounder/attachments/20060703/9ac925f6/attachment.pgp