4 ms·

first of all, the users are not giving any argument of why they need the transparency back, just "because I like it". Second, this is open source, hack it.

anona 13y ago
Isn't "because I like it" a valid argument? Also, in the case of a feature being removed I feel that the onus is on the remover to make the case for why it should go.
- adrianlmm 13y ago
  Come on, we are all developers here I want to think If I see a feature is just for aesthetic reasons with little purpose, then I could be considered as code sanitization, nobody really needs a transparent terminal, in the contrary, it may be contra productive.
  - anona 13y ago
    I don't agree that aesthetic features have little purpose in a desktop application - they are a major part of the user experience. In this case the transparency feature is clearly something that a lot of people consider worth having.
    - adrianlmm 13y ago
      Except they don't give a valid explanation for it.
      - vidarh 13y ago
        Yes, they do - there are lots of them in this thread. Either you are not paying attention, or you are making assumptions of the validity of other peoples experience that you have no basis for.
  - vidarh 13y ago
    Everything in life is not about productivity. But even if it was, the aesthetics of your environment does impact productivity. Personally I do continuously tweak the appearance of my environment because being relaxed and at ease makes a big difference to my concentration, which makes a big difference for how easily I get in the zone and is productive. To presume that a feature that is "just for aesthetic reasons" has little purpose is arrogant and/or implies a lacking understanding of other developers.
TheCowboy 13y ago
An example of a group of users who find this feature valuable is [new] users who might want to have documentation open in a browser while navigating the commandline. I've definitely found it useful, especially when on a small laptop screen. The response that it's open source, don't complain, you fix it, doesn't even seem to apply here. Does it even make sense to commit a patch to put a feature back in that a maintainer with power over the direction of the project decided to remove without explanation? Additionally, open source is also about community and wanting people to use your software, not alienate users out of some misguided ideal that sounds good in your head but just makes you out to be a selfish jerk in practice.
- adrianlmm 13y ago
  Then the terminal would need to be really transparent allow text reading, honestly, I find that improbable. The fix it argument is valid in any open source project that you don't contribute, and if you want to contribute show first valid arguments. Open source is about many goals, a simple terminal transparency is not one of them, and why would a user alienated because it doesn't have a transparent terminal?

anona 13y ago

Isn't "because I like it" a valid argument? Also, in the case of a feature being removed I feel that the onus is on the remover to make the case for why it should go.

adrianlmm 13y ago
Come on, we are all developers here I want to think If I see a feature is just for aesthetic reasons with little purpose, then I could be considered as code sanitization, nobody really needs a transparent terminal, in the contrary, it may be contra productive.
- anona 13y ago
  I don't agree that aesthetic features have little purpose in a desktop application - they are a major part of the user experience. In this case the transparency feature is clearly something that a lot of people consider worth having.
  - adrianlmm 13y ago
    Except they don't give a valid explanation for it.
    - vidarh 13y ago
      Yes, they do - there are lots of them in this thread. Either you are not paying attention, or you are making assumptions of the validity of other peoples experience that you have no basis for.
- vidarh 13y ago
  Everything in life is not about productivity. But even if it was, the aesthetics of your environment does impact productivity. Personally I do continuously tweak the appearance of my environment because being relaxed and at ease makes a big difference to my concentration, which makes a big difference for how easily I get in the zone and is productive. To presume that a feature that is "just for aesthetic reasons" has little purpose is arrogant and/or implies a lacking understanding of other developers.

TheCowboy 13y ago

An example of a group of users who find this feature valuable is [new] users who might want to have documentation open in a browser while navigating the commandline. I've definitely found it useful, especially when on a small laptop screen. The response that it's open source, don't complain, you fix it, doesn't even seem to apply here. Does it even make sense to commit a patch to put a feature back in that a maintainer with power over the direction of the project decided to remove without explanation? Additionally, open source is also about community and wanting people to use your software, not alienate users out of some misguided ideal that sounds good in your head but just makes you out to be a selfish jerk in practice.

adrianlmm 13y ago
Then the terminal would need to be really transparent allow text reading, honestly, I find that improbable. The fix it argument is valid in any open source project that you don't contribute, and if you want to contribute show first valid arguments. Open source is about many goals, a simple terminal transparency is not one of them, and why would a user alienated because it doesn't have a transparent terminal?