Hello,
>>> sajolida:
>>> See our statement on relationship with upstream:
>>> https://tails.boum.org/contribute/relationship_with_upstream/
>>
>> spencerone:
>> Yeah, but this mostly, if not only, refers to the puzzle-like
>> structure
>> of global FOSS and writing compatible code.
>
> No, those 99% of stuff reused from GNOME, Debian, and others also
> include user experience (interactions, appearance, features, etc.).
>
Sorry, but the document only refers to code and the packaging thereof.
But I understand more fully now that it is intended to refer to
everything.
>>>
>>> So we are copying 99% of what we do already and Tails couldn't exist
>>> otherwise. In that perspective, when we create the 1% of custom Tails
>>> stuff we need to pay attention to how it fits in the broader picture
>>> of
>>> the 99% that we copied. And as far as basic desktop application and
>>> integration goes, this is GNOME.
>>
>> Yes. But there is a difference between copying the functional
>> structure
>> of something and copying the style.
>
> Not really as everything ends up being code that we inherit from
> upstream: documentation, interfaces, appearance. For the same reasons
> that we don't have the capacities to rewrite the functional structure,
> we don't have the capacity to rewrite the user experience (or the code
> behind it if you prefer). Compare the budget and human resources of any
> commercial operating system and the one of Tails and you'll get my
> point
> pretty easily. That's why we insist so much on behind coherent with
> them. We don't have the capacity nor the will to rewrite everything
> that's "not invented here".
What I am saying is that we should strive to push for better resolutions
when appropriate, as opposed to simply following the path laid before
us. This is in the best interest of Tails, people who use Tails, and
everyone upstream in the FOSS community, as progress is valuable.
An example of this is this discussion about what to do with 'Nautilus
Wipe'. The consensus is leaning towards using the action word 'Wipe'
over 'Erase', 'Delete', or 'Clean', among possible others. However, this
is based mostly on the existing use of the word 'Wipe' than the logic
behind what it communicates [as well as having to change a bunch of
stuff in other places]. The best example for this is provided by
Colomban:
>
> 1. (transitive) To remove by rubbing; to rub off; to obliterate;
> usually
> followed by away, off, or out.
>
> 2. (transitive, computing) To erase.
>
Neither of these meanings communicate complete removal of the data. For
wipe to communicate this it needs the adverb of 'Clean', as in 'Wipe
Clean'. 'Clean', however, does this without the extra word, and I
believe it is what you had suggested for disk space. Also, speaking
experientially, in the US, the thing you wipe the most is your butt, but
that doesn't mean it is clean. Internationally speaking, 'Clean' might
be more easily translated into other languages, but I do not know.
Also, the argument that removing files and cleaning disk space should
use the same action word is weak, as they are two different tasks. We
are looking at removing files from the disk, then cleaning the disk,
i.e., 'Delete' and 'Clean'.
Though, to readdress the inclusion of the word 'Secure', where Colomban
rightly pointed out the conflict between the word meaning "safe" or
"more effective removal", I have to ask, can files be deleted to where
the space left behind doesn't need this extra cleaning? What is
happening when 'Verb Disk Space' is executed that isn't accomplished by
deleting a file? Apple has 'Empty Trash' and 'Secure Empty Trash', but I
only ever use the latter to force remove files that the former leaves
behind, so I don't really know the difference.
Ultimately, I am cool with 'Wipe', if that is what the team leans
towards, but keep in mind that it isn't necessarily the most
appropriate, especially considering the responsibility we have to
improve upon things before we push them back out into the world.
Wordlife,
Spencer
