thacker@math.cornell.edu (John Thacker) writes:
Altogether, Gnome2 is a very unergonomic piece of software. Userfriendly software should adapt to the user, but with Gnome2 the user has to adapt to the software. This is caused by the refusal of Gnome2 developers to allow configuration of their software and the frequent changes of the user interface.
Any claim like this should probably start with a definition of user ;-).
I think on my mother which was not very amused when the desktop had a completely different behavior after the Gnome2.4->2.6 upgrade. Or on me, who wants to use his ~/.Xmodmap and ~/.Xresources files and is stopped in this by the arrogance of the Gnome2 developers.
I would imagine that someone who does, say, marketing, would never configure their desktop (for better or worse).
Yes, and shipping a large combination of software with dramatically different icons and keyboard shortcuts for the same tasks forces a user to adapt to the software, and can hardly be considered user friendly.
1. The default firefox icons are not "dramatically different" from the default Gnome2 icon theme
2. I do not care about the default setting as long as: - it can be configured - does not override current settings
3. What is the meaning of "different"? Different to what? Firefox is the only Gnome2 application I am using, so why am I forced to see these ugly icons?
I do not know KDE, but I can imagine that people with this desktop environment will be shocked also when they see the current firefox icons; they probably do not match the KDE theme neither.
Enrico