The Grumpy Editor's GNOME 3 experience
The Grumpy Editor's GNOME 3 experience
Posted Mar 16, 2011 2:12 UTC (Wed) by sramkrishna (subscriber, #72628)In reply to: The Grumpy Editor's GNOME 3 experience by jcm
Parent article: The Grumpy Editor's GNOME 3 experience
The whole GNOME ui everywhere on all devices is my own perception and doesn't reflect what GNOME itself is trying to do. They might just simply focus on the desktop experience. I think big. It's a bad habit. :-)
The separation of the UI from the desktop API itself is a feature, that means we can come up with our own UI for any particular device. What's important is the underlying layers of GTK+/Cairo/Linux as the platform. Separating the UI and allowing us to use javascript to create and control the UI experience gives us the flexibilty of being able to create other UI for other devices.
As for your question why is change relevant. Change is always relevant. Why do you need so many different kinds of filesystems? Isn't ext4 good enough? If we just accept status quo how does anything get done? Why do we need a car? Isn't a horse and buggy good enough? Every time you move to the next level you move to a different set of realities that give you new avenues to pursue. It's in our nature to always pursue what somebody will always consider "flights of fancy". But it is the engine that moves us forward.
All people crave change, but not all crave change in the same area. Desktop people want to push the limits of user interaction. We have no other purpose. No desktop project is going to accept status quo for long. No kernel developer is going to accept using the same scheduler for long. There is always some new hardware that drives making a better scheduler to take advantage of it.
Maybe we've lost you for now.. but guaranteed, those other projects are doing the same thing we are. Maybe some want to give you even greater control of your desktop, give you lots of options, others might want to take away some, put others.. we fiddle with things, that what we do. You fiddle in the areas you're interested in.
Posted Mar 16, 2011 11:41 UTC (Wed)
by nix (subscriber, #2304)
[Link] (7 responses)
(Look at the core Unix tools: fundamentally unchanged other than new features and the removal of restrictions since the 1970s, even though they are definitely not perfect. Why? Inertia. People dislike change.)
Posted Mar 16, 2011 15:23 UTC (Wed)
by me@jasonclinton.com (subscriber, #52701)
[Link] (4 responses)
* Finding windows was frustrating and difficult
In short, we saw real problems which needed real solutions.
Posted Mar 16, 2011 16:25 UTC (Wed)
by nix (subscriber, #2304)
[Link] (3 responses)
Posted Mar 16, 2011 16:27 UTC (Wed)
by me@jasonclinton.com (subscriber, #52701)
[Link] (2 responses)
Then stop commenting?
Posted Mar 16, 2011 17:44 UTC (Wed)
by nix (subscriber, #2304)
[Link]
Posted Mar 24, 2011 14:16 UTC (Thu)
by nye (guest, #51576)
[Link]
You have yet to make a single comment on this article that isn't outright trolling, but you seem to feel compelled to randomly pop up in every subthread to hurl some abuse.
Commenters like yourself are the reason that I consider LWN to be a largely hostile, poisonous community, and consequently make less of an attempt than I should to behave in a way that I might in a forum I respect.
The one potential positive outcome of your posting is that I resolve to try harder to act as if LWN is more like the place I want it to be, on the grounds that if everyone did that, perhaps it would be.
If only it were possible to killfile entire categories of articles as flamebait, the overall experience would probably be much improved.
Posted Mar 16, 2011 20:38 UTC (Wed)
by jcm (subscriber, #18262)
[Link] (1 responses)
We have (weirdly) in recent times gotten to a place where there is a big push (I don't mean to single out GNOME here, because it's general) to undermine our UNIX heritage, and throw it all away in the name of shininess. Now, that push may not be malicious, and I'm sure everyone is well intentioned, but the newer generation aren't necessarily respecting what came before, or the value of long-term, stable, backward compatibility.
Why do Microsoft have a strangle hold? Sure, lots of reasons that are not entirely kosher, but they also have win32 (and later stuff) that people have been able to target for about a billion years in writing to a standard platform. It is *high time* we re-embraced our POSIX, SUS, LSB, and other standard routes, had *one* well supported, ingrained and established GUI platform, and could be that shining Linux alternative. It might not be perfect, but by not re-inventing the wheel every 5 years we will finally give others a chance to really target our platform, then we can improve it slowly, evolving as dictated by real world use.
This is what I was alluding at in my other comment(s). I used to care about building up random platform bits for the sake of it, but after 15 years I'm growing tired of the same old stuff. I want a computer that just works and I can take for granted the platform bit. There's been enough time. Sure, I no longer have to run isapnpdump or APS Magicfilter, but in the last few years I've had to fiddle with (not mentioning names) let's just say "way too many" wheel re-inventions of core Linux technologies. All of these are interesting projects, but I would rather we had stuck with what we had before and new problems had been solved instead of doing the same old thing that was being done 10, 15, or 30 years ago.
In a few years, the current generation of folks trying to change everything will be 5 or 10 years older, get to the same realization, and the entire story will repeat itself. I suppose the important thing is not to get too worked up about it, which is why I also run a Mac now (not because I think it's any better, but because it's "good enough" for surfing the web and doing desktop non-server stuff at home). I might have just chuckled to myself and ignored this story, but it did work me up slightly because of the amount of time I've had to waste especially last weekend undoing all of these changes to get back to where I was.
Jon.
Posted Mar 16, 2011 20:43 UTC (Wed)
by jcm (subscriber, #18262)
[Link]
Posted Mar 16, 2011 13:53 UTC (Wed)
by dskoll (subscriber, #1630)
[Link]
All people crave change
Really? Could you back up that assertion with a little bit of evidence?
My (admittedly anecdotal) experience is that most people hate change when it comes to major changes to the way their computer works. This is based on observations of my kids, parents, siblings and co-workers.
My kids use KDE and found the KDE 4 transition extremely jarring; it took them a couple of weeks to get back to their normal level of productivity.
Posted Mar 16, 2011 22:34 UTC (Wed)
by dmadsen (guest, #14859)
[Link] (2 responses)
The changes happen *at my pace and my option*, not anyone else's.
I'm an old fossil. I don't want change. I want my hands/fingers to know what to do on my desktop so that I am free to think about the actual task I'm trying to accomplish. A changing desktop is a distraction, an annoyance, a hindrance to productivity.
And when I have a few minutes and want to try out a specific new feature, I should easily be able to. And if I like it, then I'll use it. Someday maybe I'll use the entire feature set. Whoo-hoo!
Someone may love desktops and it may be their whole life. But it's a tool for me. Don't ever confuse yourself with your user base. And God forbid, don't think that everyone likes Macs or weird cellphone menus or adding lots of mileage on their mouse.
So sure, add all the new stuff you want; rewrite anything you want; have a great time. But when you do it, *don't* mess with what I have!
---dcm
Posted Mar 17, 2011 16:46 UTC (Thu)
by Frej (guest, #4165)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Mar 17, 2011 21:39 UTC (Thu)
by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784)
[Link]
The Grumpy Editor's GNOME 3 experience
All people crave change
Here's where you should start rethinking. Most people crave stability and dislike change. They may not loathe it, but they don't like it. Change for the sake of change is a bad thing.
The Grumpy Editor's GNOME 3 experience
* Workspaces were useful but not easy or natural to use
* Launching applications was labour-intensive and error-prone
* The panel suffered from over-configurability; applets were little used by most users
The Grumpy Editor's GNOME 3 experience
The Grumpy Editor's GNOME 3 experience
The Grumpy Editor's GNOME 3 experience
The Grumpy Editor's GNOME 3 experience
The Grumpy Editor's GNOME 3 experience
The Grumpy Editor's GNOME 3 experience
The Grumpy Editor's GNOME 3 experience
The Grumpy Editor's GNOME 3 experience
The Grumpy Editor's GNOME 3 experience
Indeed - but pinning your DE at the previous major version, which is what's necessary to keep it around when you find the new major version utterly unacceptable - tends to make your package manager very, very unhappy very, very quickly.
The Grumpy Editor's GNOME 3 experience