User talk:90.194.174.18

XScreenSaver revert

You reverted my edit to XScreenSaver claiming "Statement written in non-neutral language with incorrect use of time bomb" -- what's non-neutral in my use? And especially, what do you consider to be a "correct" use of time bomb? What jwz did seems an exemplary case to me. -- KiloByte (talk) 21:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello; the Time bomb (software) article specifically states that it is "part of a computer program that has been written so that it will stop functioning after a predetermined date or time is reached". As far as I understand, what xscreensaver has is a message that appears after a predetermine amount of time. Nothing in the program ceases function; it does not disable itself nor any features.

As for non-neutral language; "chastising the user" is subjective. We cannot say for certain if the intent of the message is to chastise. "warning the user" may be better, as the intent of xscreensaver's message can at least be understood as a warning ("WARNING: This version is very old! Please upgrade!"). -- 90.194.174.18 (talk) 08:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll ask some random person on #wikipedia to resolve our conflict.

I do find that part of definition of time bomb weird -- a partial loss of functionality, as well as annoying easter eggs, count in my opinion. This kind of looks like a cross between a time bomb and a logic bomb -- activated purely by a timer but having a different payload than stopping working.

You might be right about "chastising" being subjective. I don't agree though with unqualified use of warning -- jwz's interpretation of being outdated is really different than those of the community (at least Debian's community) and shows a misunderstanding of the purpose of stable releases. So a different wording would be nice. -- KiloByte (talk) 14:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inviting a third party is a good idea; thank you. With this issue in general, I have seen a lot of vitriol on both sides of the debate, so it's important that neither side negatively affect Wikipedia in contributions to articles. So that said. . .

Why does it have to be any kind of bomb? Both imply malicious intent. Consider whether this is relevant to the message box itself; those on one side of the debate think it's malicious (annoying, intrusive, rude, offensive, etc), those on the other think it is necessary (security, good practice, jwz's wishes, etc). What is the neutral ground here?

jwz's or Debian's interpretation is irrelevant; objectively, the message's intent is to be a warning (it even uses the very word "WARNING"). The issue at hand is about the message itself; not whether jwz understands stable releases nor whether Debian agrees or disagrees with the message. The latter two points should be elaborated in a balanced and neutral manner instead; perhaps in the same paragraph, or in a new "Controversy" section.

Thank you for taking the time to discuss this, -- 90.194.174.18 (talk) 16:27, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.