原文在这http://applications.linux.com/article.pl?sid=07/02/16/1937237，相当激烈的讨论，只看下拉条头就大了……
（Need Help！翻译这篇文章真是头大，需要大家的帮助～～）
（先解释一下Godwin’s law：
Godwin’s law. 很有趣，是说在线讨论超过一定时间，有很大可能会涉及到与纳粹或希特勒相关的话题。
比较令我吃惊的是，Godwin’s law出现在1990年。对于互联网来说，可以称其为史前时代了。很有趣也是很严肃的问题。
这里 是wikipedia上的介绍。（http://blog.thinkevolving.org/2005/09/20/godwins-law/）
（百出来的）
）
Friday February 16, 2007 (08:01 PM GMT)
By: Linux.com staff
Some bad blood between Linus Torvalds and GNOME developers is flaring up again. Previously,
Linus Torvalds和GNOME开发者之间的论战又开始引人注目了。
Torvalds has said that Linux users should switch to KDE instead of GNOME because of the
以前，因为GNOME团队的“用户是傻瓜”的思想，Torvalds说过Linux用户应该转向KDE而不是GNOME。
GNOME team's "users are idiots" mentality. Now he has "put his money
？？－－－－－－－－－－－－－－
where his mouth is" by submitting patches to GNOME in order to have it behave as he
－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－
likes.
－－？
This week, on the Linux Foundation's (formerly OSDL) Desktop Architects mailing list,
这个星期，Linux基金会（以前是OSDL）的桌面开发组的邮件列表里，
the two sides are going mano a mano. On Monday, Marcos Pérez López replied in Spanish to an
两方面开始 ？？－－－－－？？ 周一，Marcos Pérez López 用西班牙语回复了以前Torvalds
earlier message from Torvalds in which Torvalds lashed out at the GNOME crew, claiming
讽刺GNOME团队的邮件。
GNOME developers believed their users were idiots. López's reply defending GNOME was in
Torvalds的邮件里声称GNOME开发者相信用户是傻瓜。López的回复用西班牙语为GNOME做了辩护。
Spanish, and he closed it by saying:
他是这样结束的：
¿Quién es el NAZI?
Who is the Nazi?
谁是纳粹？
Nada más, esto para LINUS para que piense. Nothing more, this is for Linus to
没别的，这只是给Linus去想的。
think about.
LINUS, NO SABES LEER ESPAÑOL, ¿A VER SI VAS A SER IDIOTA TU TAMBIÉN? Linus, you don't know how to read Spanish, so are you an idiot too?
Linus，你不懂怎样去读西班牙语，这就说明你是傻瓜么？
Godwin's Law was quickly invoked by Fernando Herrera, but that didn't stop the
Fernando Herrera迅速使用了Godwin的规律，但这并没有结束争论。
debate. Torvalds took the Spanish in stride, and continued the argument by saying
Torvalds跳过了西班牙语，继续争论道
it was good for GNOME to be easy to use, but that "'ONLY being easy to use' is
GNOME的易用是好的，但是“仅仅易于使用”是不好的。
bad." He also noted that "GNOME people seem to think that once you 'got into it,'
他还补充说明到“GNOME人好像在想一旦你‘进去了’，
you never want to do anything more. Not true."
就再也不会想做别的事。实际不是这样。”
Christian F.K. Schaller then threw down the gauntlet, urging Torvalds to action with:
Christian F.K. Schaller于是拒绝挑战（金山词霸上的翻译），劝Torvalds：
If you are up for a challenge, why don't you use GNOME for a month
then
如果你敢接受挑战，为什么不用GNOME一个月
come and do a talk about your experience at this years GUADEC in England?
然后再讲述你这些年来在英国GUADEC的经历呢？
Could maybe be a good way to start a constructive dialog instead of this
这或许是一个建设性对话的开始而不是像现在这样无用的互相揭短吧？
useless mudslinging?
如果你敢接受挑战，为什么不用GNOME一个月
come and do a talk about your experience at this years GUADEC in England?
然后再讲述你这些年来在英国GUADEC的经历呢？
Could maybe be a good way to start a constructive dialog instead of this
这或许是一个建设性对话的开始而不是像现在这样无用的互相揭短吧？
useless mudslinging?
This morning, Torvalds responded to the challenge, though not in the manner
这个早晨，Torvalds回应了挑战，虽然不是Schaller建议的方式。
Schaller suggested. He submitted patches to GNOME to make it behave as he
他提交了可以使GNOME运转得更像他设想的那样的补丁，
wants, then told the mailing list:
然后告诉邮件列表:
I've sent out patches. The code
is actually _cleaner_ after my patches, and the end result is more
capable. We'll see what happens.
THAT is constructive.
What I find unconstructive is how the GNOME people always make *excuses*. It took me a few hours to actually do the patches. It wasn't that hard. So why didn't I do it years ago?
I'll tell you why: because GNOME apologists don't say "please send us patches". No. They basically make it clear that they aren't even *interested* in fixing things, because their dear old Mum isn't interested in the feature.
Do you think that's "constructive"?
So let's see what happens to my patches. I guarantee you that they actually improve the code (not just add a feature). I also guarantee that they actually make things *more* logical rather than less (with my patches, double-clicking on the title bar isn't a special event: it's configurable along with right- and middle-clicking, and with the exact same syntax for all).
But why, oh, why, have GNOME people not just said "please fix it then"?
Instead, I _still_ (now after I sent out the patch) hear more of your kvetching about how you actually do everything right, and it's somehow *my* fault that I find things limiting.
Here's a damn big clue: the reason I find GNOME limiting is BECAUSE IT IS.
Now the question is, will people take the patches, or will they keep their heads up their arses and claim that configurability is bad, even when it makes things more logical, and code more readable.
THAT is constructive.
What I find unconstructive is how the GNOME people always make *excuses*. It took me a few hours to actually do the patches. It wasn't that hard. So why didn't I do it years ago?
I'll tell you why: because GNOME apologists don't say "please send us patches". No. They basically make it clear that they aren't even *interested* in fixing things, because their dear old Mum isn't interested in the feature.
Do you think that's "constructive"?
So let's see what happens to my patches. I guarantee you that they actually improve the code (not just add a feature). I also guarantee that they actually make things *more* logical rather than less (with my patches, double-clicking on the title bar isn't a special event: it's configurable along with right- and middle-clicking, and with the exact same syntax for all).
But why, oh, why, have GNOME people not just said "please fix it then"?
Instead, I _still_ (now after I sent out the patch) hear more of your kvetching about how you actually do everything right, and it's somehow *my* fault that I find things limiting.
Here's a damn big clue: the reason I find GNOME limiting is BECAUSE IT IS.
Now the question is, will people take the patches, or will they keep their heads up their arses and claim that configurability is bad, even when it makes things more logical, and code more readable.
Welcome to wonderful, wacky, never-dull world of free and open source software, where in spite of all the posturing and debate, the answer is always best couched in code.