There is a current poll at fedora forum. http://forums.fedoraforum.org/showthread.php?t=284463
The winner is.......
Wolfgang
Am 05.02.2013 19:49, schrieb Rave it:> There is a current poll at fedora forum.
pff look at the total count
56 users said they use GNOME3 so what..............
and even if the count would be larger, it says nothing about how satisfied they are, nor do most users even know about the voting and last but not least most users are not visible here or at fedoraforum.org and nonody can count the "wtf did they with my desktop" users after GNOME3 hit their life
the same for KDE4.0 some years ago - if there would have been the option "KDE3 or KDE4" the first two years you can imagine how much users would have choosen KDE3.x
what makes me rellay angry (as one who never used and will use GNOME and i knew GNOME 1.0 and KDE 1.0 as well where most users of today not heard about linux at all) is that the GNOME developers did NOT learn ANYTHING by the KDE4.0 disaster and that distributions are not straight enough to show ignorant upstream "if you think you can abuse all your users by present a completly different desktop with thse same name we stop supporting you" - no "lala i follow blindly"
On 2013-02-05 20:06, Reindl Harald wrote: [cut]
what makes me rellay angry (as one who never used and will use GNOME and i knew GNOME 1.0 and KDE 1.0 as well where most users of today not heard about linux at all) is that the GNOME developers did NOT learn ANYTHING by the KDE4.0 disaster and that distributions are not straight enough to show ignorant upstream "if you think you can abuse all your users by present a completly different desktop with thse same name we stop supporting you" - no "lala i follow blindly"
As one with memories of OpenLook, CDE, Gnome 1.0 and others...I think we have two things in this thread: whether to have a default alternative for new users (attracting most of the QA resources we have available), and what a default alternative should be.
I leave the "no default desktop" discussion aside, we shouldnt it have unless some on this list are feeling so strong about the GNOME3 evilness. So remaining question is IMHO what default alternative we should use.
I wouldn't say Fedora "follows blindly" but rather chooses an upstream from some alternatives (their ability to handle feedback from us beeing one ot the criterias). I think the discussion in this thread has shown that GNOME3 is really the best option, the developer resources maybe being the best argument.
That said, one question is in the air for those of us with so long memories: are we able to adapt to a changing (desktop) environment?
Personally, I really like GNOME3. But if Fedora for reasons unknown decided to choose another desktop I think I would just stick to GNOME3, installing it and then use it as long as it was a viable alternative. Can't see this as a big issue.
Just my 5 öre
--alec
On 5 February 2013 20:10, Alec Leamas leamas.alec@gmail.com wrote:
I wouldn't say Fedora "follows blindly" but rather chooses an upstream from some alternatives (their ability to handle feedback from us beeing one ot the criterias).
Gnome has been the default, unless I'm misremebering since *before* Fedora (RH8/9 or earlier). That's not incompatible with 'chooses an upstream from some alternatives' but does suggest some inertia. Maybe if Gnome really thinks distros might drop them they'd think harder about introducing unwanted workflow changes every other release.
Am 05.02.2013 21:31, schrieb Ian Malone:
On 5 February 2013 20:10, Alec Leamas leamas.alec@gmail.com wrote:
I wouldn't say Fedora "follows blindly" but rather chooses an upstream from some alternatives (their ability to handle feedback from us beeing one ot the criterias).
Gnome has been the default, unless I'm misremebering since *before* Fedora (RH8/9 or earlier). That's not incompatible with 'chooses an upstream from some alternatives' but does suggest some inertia. Maybe if Gnome really thinks distros might drop them they'd think harder about introducing unwanted workflow changes every other release.
exactly that is my point
as long it is tolerated from any distro for any upstream project do beark any compatibility why should developers care about anything and spent time to think if the way they are going is really the best for the users
currently the only reaction of many open source projects is "it is free so who do you think you are" - by some changes i say "thank god it is free and not paied for it"
On 02/05/2013 09:31 PM, Ian Malone wrote:
On 5 February 2013 20:10, Alec Leamas leamas.alec@gmail.com wrote:
I wouldn't say Fedora "follows blindly" but rather chooses an upstream from some alternatives (their ability to handle feedback from us beeing one ot the criterias).
Gnome has been the default, unless I'm misremebering since *before* Fedora (RH8/9 or earlier). That's not incompatible with 'chooses an upstream from some alternatives' but does suggest some inertia. Maybe if Gnome really thinks distros might drop them they'd think harder about introducing unwanted workflow changes every other release.
The actual problem is the current Gnome 3 being an entirely different product than Gnome 2, which usability-wise has *nothing* in common with Gnome2 and addresses a completely different target audience.
You ordered Gnome and have been served Pizza for a long time - now you're being served Burgers :-)
Ralf
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Ralf Corsepius rc040203@freenet.de wrote:
On 02/05/2013 09:31 PM, Ian Malone wrote:
On 5 February 2013 20:10, Alec Leamas leamas.alec@gmail.com wrote:
I wouldn't say Fedora "follows blindly" but rather chooses an upstream
from some alternatives (their ability to handle feedback from us beeing one ot the criterias).
Gnome has been the default, unless I'm misremebering since *before* Fedora (RH8/9 or earlier). That's not incompatible with 'chooses an upstream from some alternatives' but does suggest some inertia. Maybe if Gnome really thinks distros might drop them they'd think harder about introducing unwanted workflow changes every other release.
The actual problem is the current Gnome 3 being an entirely different product than Gnome 2, which usability-wise has *nothing* in common with Gnome2 and addresses a completely different target audience.
You ordered Gnome and have been served Pizza for a long time - now you're being served Burgers :-)
Mmmmm. . . .cheeseburger pizza. . .
-J
Ralf
-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.**org/mailman/listinfo/develhttps://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On 2013-02-05 21:46, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 02/05/2013 09:31 PM, Ian Malone wrote:
On 5 February 2013 20:10, Alec Leamas leamas.alec@gmail.com wrote:
I wouldn't say Fedora "follows blindly" but rather chooses an upstream from some alternatives (their ability to handle feedback from us beeing one ot the criterias).
Gnome has been the default, unless I'm misremebering since *before* Fedora (RH8/9 or earlier). That's not incompatible with 'chooses an upstream from some alternatives' but does suggest some inertia. Maybe if Gnome really thinks distros might drop them they'd think harder about introducing unwanted workflow changes every other release.
The actual problem is the current Gnome 3 being an entirely different product than Gnome 2, which usability-wise has *nothing* in common with Gnome2 and addresses a completely different target audience.
You ordered Gnome and have been served Pizza for a long time - now you're being served Burgers :-)
Ralf
Well, from a nutrition perspective that's actually a big step forward. Perhaps time to trust the chef? ;)
--alec
Alec Leamas wrote:
On 2013-02-05 21:46, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
You ordered Gnome and have been served Pizza for a long time - now you're being served Burgers :-)
Well, from a nutrition perspective that's actually a big step forward. Perhaps time to trust the chef? ;)
Huh? A plain cheese pizza (be it an original Pizza Margherita or an American-style cheese pizza) is much more suitable as an everyday meal than a burger. You know you're not supposed to eat meat every day, right? :-)
And if the cheese is too heavy for you, try Pizza Marinara (i.e., with only tomatos, garlic, and maybe some herbs).
(I know this is way off-topic, but I just HAD to defend one of the Italian national dishes there. :-) )
Kevin Kofler
On Tue, 05 Feb 2013 21:46:32 +0100 Ralf Corsepius rc040203@freenet.de wrote:
The actual problem is the current Gnome 3 being an entirely different product than Gnome 2, which usability-wise has *nothing* in common with Gnome2 and addresses a completely different target audience.
Ralf, could you please stop this generalization. You have been conveniently ignoring posts to the contrary, including mine.
--Stijn
On 02/06/2013 08:42 AM, Stijn Hoop wrote:
On Tue, 05 Feb 2013 21:46:32 +0100 Ralf Corsepius rc040203@freenet.de wrote:
The actual problem is the current Gnome 3 being an entirely different product than Gnome 2, which usability-wise has *nothing* in common with Gnome2 and addresses a completely different target audience.
Ralf, could you please stop this generalization. You have been conveniently ignoring posts to the contrary, including mine.
Sorry, I don't see what I am generalizing.
Gnome3 and Gnome2's GUI working principles are entirely different and therefore are catering the demands of different target audiences. They are similarly different as WinXP and Android are different in their GUIs' working principles.
I can not help you if do not understand what I am talking about.
Ralf
On Fri, 08 Feb 2013 07:47:48 +0100 Ralf Corsepius rc040203@freenet.de wrote:
On 02/06/2013 08:42 AM, Stijn Hoop wrote:
On Tue, 05 Feb 2013 21:46:32 +0100 Ralf Corsepius rc040203@freenet.de wrote:
The actual problem is the current Gnome 3 being an entirely different product than Gnome 2, which usability-wise has *nothing* in common with Gnome2 and addresses a completely different target audience.
Ralf, could you please stop this generalization. You have been conveniently ignoring posts to the contrary, including mine.
Sorry, I don't see what I am generalizing.
Gnome3 and Gnome2's GUI working principles are entirely different and therefore are catering the demands of different target audiences. They are similarly different as WinXP and Android are different in their GUIs' working principles.
I can not help you if do not understand what I am talking about.
Ralf
I am providing a datapoint that directly contradicts your original statement, namely that there is a "completely different target audience" for GNOME 2 vs GNOME 3.
I am that datapoint.
I know that it is my anecdata, but I am pretty sure that I have not yet read any actual facts supporting your side of the argument as well.
Furthermore I am pretty sure that I am not the only one enjoying GNOME 3, while having enjoyed GNOME 2, having read the other posts in this thread.
Hopefully that is clearer, regards,
--Stijn
On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 10:34:58AM +0100, Stijn Hoop wrote:
I am providing a datapoint that directly contradicts your original statement, namely that there is a "completely different target audience" for GNOME 2 vs GNOME 3.
I am that datapoint.
As are various others during FOSDEM (Vincent Untz asked people to raise their hands). No idea how representative that it. Also people who didn't like it, etc. As said during that presentation, figuring out if something is felt by either a small focal minority or that it is generic (representative) is pretty difficult and anyone is of course feel free to assist.
Le Ven 8 février 2013 13:22, Olav Vitters a écrit :
On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 10:34:58AM +0100, Stijn Hoop wrote:
I am providing a datapoint that directly contradicts your original statement, namely that there is a "completely different target audience" for GNOME 2 vs GNOME 3.
I am that datapoint.
As are various others during FOSDEM (Vincent Untz asked people to raise their hands). No idea how representative that it.
The FOSDEM poll was stacked — no one really wanted to hurt Vincent Untz too much given his obvious efforts to be nice, there was this knot of GNOME people bunched together that were a tad intimidating, and people do not go to FOSDEM to fight. What is telling however is the complete refusal of the audience to put systemd and Gnome 3 in the same bucket. Lennart's efforts to explain his project, understand sysadmin needs, provide a smooth transition and keep current usages working clearly paid off there.
So don't overplay the GNOME 3 FOSDEM session, it was an awkward moment for everyone involved (and certainly not representative of the positive energy that permeated other presentations).
On Fri, 8 Feb 2013 20:35:56 +0100 "Nicolas Mailhot" nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net wrote:
Le Ven 8 février 2013 13:22, Olav Vitters a écrit :
On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 10:34:58AM +0100, Stijn Hoop wrote:
I am providing a datapoint that directly contradicts your original statement, namely that there is a "completely different target audience" for GNOME 2 vs GNOME 3.
I am that datapoint.
As are various others during FOSDEM (Vincent Untz asked people to raise their hands). No idea how representative that it.
The FOSDEM poll was stacked — no one really wanted to hurt Vincent Untz too much given his obvious efforts to be nice, there was this knot of GNOME people bunched together that were a tad intimidating, and people do not go to FOSDEM to fight. What is telling however is the complete refusal of the audience to put systemd and Gnome 3 in the same bucket. Lennart's efforts to explain his project, understand sysadmin needs, provide a smooth transition and keep current usages working clearly paid off there.
So don't overplay the GNOME 3 FOSDEM session, it was an awkward moment for everyone involved (and certainly not representative of the positive energy that permeated other presentations).
To be honest, I don't think any poll will ever suffice for this topic. Nor do I think a poll is what's needed.
It should simply be easier to switch to a desktop that Works For You, especially after installation, and even before if possible. That way we can keep the anti-GNOME-3 people happy as well.
In the end I guess we can't get rid of the fanatical "GNOME 3 is for tablets only" meme (and others like it that I personally don't agree with), but hey, I don't mind as long as I can ignore those.
But I will keep objecting to the single-sided argument that there is no "GNOME 2 user" that likes GNOME 3. I fully support those who have tried and rejected the new stuff -- as long as they don't impose their opinion on me :-)
--Stijn
On Fri, 8 Feb 2013 20:45:30 +0100 Stijn Hoop wrote:
But I will keep objecting to the single-sided argument that there is no "GNOME 2 user" that likes GNOME 3. I fully support those who have tried and rejected the new stuff -- as long as they don't impose their opinion on me :-)
I don't think anyone ever claimed such thing. What we (the Gnome 2 fans, but Gnome 3 "haters") are saying is basically this: * Gnome 3 is a radical change from Gnome 2, in many ways, and for many people this was an unacceptable direction. These were numerous enough to get Cinnamon, Mate and Unity up and working. Some of those (including me) expanded XFCE (or other classical desktops) user base. These combined are a real lot of people. These users aren't going to return. * Gnome devs didn't learn from KDE's mistake (the release of beta stuff as 4.0) and went even further. Users affected by only this might return (like Linus did). * Gnome 3's target audience does not enclose majority of Gnome 2's target audience, though it *does* have some intersection. Many of those are seeing this as arrogance. * Some trivial stuff is taking months to years to re-implement (shut down). * Gnome 3 is going the I-know-better-then-you-what's-good-for-you way. That's one of the reasons why many of us are using linux than windows -- because it traditionally *does not* do so. Randomly breaking things with messages like (oops, something went wrong, please try again) or things behaving unpredictably is *not* the linux way. * We think Gnome 3 is doing similar type of mistake as Windows 8. * We believe that due to the differences between Gnome 2 and Gnome 3, many users left Fedora during the switch. * We think that if we changed default desktop now, it would be less disruptive than when we switched from G2 to G3, because we wouldn't be switching to beta project, however I think that neither Cinnamon and Mate are good candidates. They're too recent both in the world and in Fedora repos. I'd rather have G3 as default than another semi-beta or monolithic-DE-maintained-by-two-or-three people stuff. * gnome devs are systematically removing features many former gnome users thought were useful, and sometimes adding them back again after a year or so of complains. We perceive that as devs doing whatever they wont and ignoring the real users in favour of some imaginary ones. * huge overuse of symbolic icons (this includes the new anaconda) * maybe I forgot something
Not every former gnome user agrees with these, but they're probably the ones that are most prominent.
Martin
On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 1:23 AM, Martin Sourada martin.sourada@gmail.com wrote:
- Gnome devs didn't learn from KDE's mistake (the release of beta stuff as 4.0) and went even further. Users affected by only this might return (like Linus did).
I can't recall that many stability bugs getting reported against GNOME 3.0 ... so [citation needed].
- Gnome 3's target audience does not enclose majority of Gnome 2's target audience, though it *does* have some intersection. Many of those are seeing this as arrogance.
Being different does not imply different target audience ... same thing and discussion happened when GNOME 2.0 got released. Now the haters from back then want GNOME 2.0 back ;)
- Some trivial stuff is taking months to years to re-implement (shut down).
Nonsense. Shutdown has always been implemented. It just got presented differently.
- Gnome 3 is going the I-know-better-then-you-what's-good-for-you way.
Sure by giving you an extension system that allows you to do whatever you want with the desktop ....
That's one of the reasons why many of us are using linux than windows -- because it traditionally *does not* do so. Randomly breaking things with messages like (oops, something went wrong, please try again) or things behaving unpredictably is *not* the linux way.
Strawman.
- We think Gnome 3 is doing similar type of mistake as Windows 8.
GNOME3 has nothing to do with windows 8 other than both work better on touch devices then previous releases .... supporting new hardware isn't really a bad thing imo.
- We believe that due to the differences between Gnome 2 and Gnome 3, many users left Fedora during the switch.
[citation needed].
Anecdotes do not count (there are user that switched to Fedora because they wanted a good GNOME 3 experience).
- gnome devs are systematically removing features many former gnome users thought were useful, and sometimes adding them back again after a year or so of complains. We perceive that as devs doing whatever they wont and ignoring the real users in favour of some imaginary ones.
- huge overuse of symbolic icons (this includes the new anaconda)
That's a problem why exactly? Actually it is the opposite ... stuff looks way better and polished if you compare it to the GNOME2.
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 3:37 PM, drago01 drago01@gmail.com wrote:
Being different does not imply different target audience ... same thing and discussion happened when GNOME 2.0 got released. Now the haters from back then want GNOME 2.0 back ;)
Can we start a new thread about bringing sawfish back as the default window manager. Because really, it had a lot of features that I have been missing through the entire g2 experience.
-jef"sort of not joking"spaleta
On Sat, 9 Feb 2013 01:37:03 +0100 drago01 wrote:
I can't recall that many stability bugs getting reported against GNOME 3.0 ... so [citation needed].
Well the fallback mode being a poor man's excuse was partly the case why the people couldn't stay with gnome. Loads of features weren't implemented in 3.0. If anything Gnome 3.0 was more of a technology preview than fully usable desktop.
Nonsense. Shutdown has always been implemented. It just got presented differently.
That's even more the reason -- the code was present, so it was not a problem of not having the human resources to make it work as expected by users. It was just the devs being stuck on the mundane idea that it's bad to have it shown by default.
- Gnome 3 is going the I-know-better-then-you-what's-good-for-you way.
Sure by giving you an extension system that allows you to do whatever you want with the desktop ....
1st Gnome 3 isn't just a gnome shell, gnome apps are getting worse as well (but there are also some positive trends) 2nd Yes, three major releases after 3.0 we finally get something that can be used by majority of gnome 2 user base. I'm sorry, but that's too late for most of them to think of going back.
GNOME3 has nothing to do with windows 8 other than both work better
M> on
touch devices then previous releases .... supporting new hardware isn't really a bad thing imo.
I think they've done the same mistake, that does not implicate that they have anything else to do with each other (besides gnome shell is older than Win 8). Being neither cat nor dog isn't a good thing, IMHO. Either you optimize for touch devices or for traditional input, not for both.
- We believe that due to the differences between Gnome 2 and Gnome
3, many users left Fedora during the switch.
Notice the wording I used. I'm not presenting it as fact, but as a belief based on experience. There aren't any acceptable statistics to either prove or disprove the claim.
Anecdotes do not count (there are user that switched to Fedora because they wanted a good GNOME 3 experience).
That users left does not imply new didn't come ;-)
- huge overuse of symbolic icons (this includes the new anaconda)
That's a problem why exactly? Actually it is the opposite ... stuff looks way better and polished if you compare it to the GNOME2.
Better? Polished? Those huge lumps of blurry grey stuff you have no idea what they represent? Oh yes, on my B&W e-book reader they look awesome, but on desktop? Are we back in the days when displays didn't display colour? I tried directly comparing Nautilus with Thunar, side-by-side, in F18. It's actually Nautilus that looks like from last millennium, not Thunar. Despite having otherwise very similar interface.
I'm not against symbolic icons ideologically. They have their place in modern desktop. But when they are used too much, and in bigger sizes, they tend to be bland. Plus, as they are actually composed of no more than 2 or 3 shades/colours, they're very limited in how they can look, so having too much of them is severely damaging your ability to tell them apart.
And while talking about polish -- why in the world is the Adwaitha scrollbar a grey rounded rectangle while almost everything else in the theme is shaded with gradients, shadows and distinct borders? No, I definitely cannot talk about polish when speaking about Gnome 3. In some places yes, but it's hugely inconsistent. Looks like half-done work (some areas polished [almost] professionally, while others are bland and non-fitting with the rest). IMHO
Martin
Could we move this to a gnome/desktop list?
The subject of the thread has been decided...
I don't think it's providing much value to the Fedora devel community anymore.
kevin
On Fri, 8 Feb 2013 18:21:00 -0700 Kevin Fenzi wrote:
Could we move this to a gnome/desktop list?
The subject of the thread has been decided...
I don't think it's providing much value to the Fedora devel community anymore.
Ah, yes, my apologies. I would rather end this off topic sub-thread altogether. I don't want another flame, and I've already said pretty much everything what I wanted to say, anything else would be just rephrasing that...
Martin
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 8:21 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
Could we move this to a gnome/desktop list?
The subject of the thread has been decided...
I don't think it's providing much value to the Fedora devel community anymore.
+1. Gnome 2 was counterintuitive enough. I can't imagine how Gnome 3 is like after all these comments (I never dared to try).
Please continue the discussion in some Gnome mailing list.
Thanks, Orcan
On 9 February 2013 00:37, drago01 drago01@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 1:23 AM, Martin Sourada martin.sourada@gmail.com wrote:
- Gnome 3's target audience does not enclose majority of Gnome 2's target audience, though it *does* have some intersection. Many of those are seeing this as arrogance.
Being different does not imply different target audience ... same thing and discussion happened when GNOME 2.0 got released. Now the haters from back then want GNOME 2.0 back ;)
Gnome 2 slowly returned to the old behaviour in many ways. Gnome 3 is starting to do this.
- Some trivial stuff is taking months to years to re-implement (shut down).
Nonsense. Shutdown has always been implemented. It just got presented differently.
Hidden. On the bizarre assumption users didn't need it.
- Gnome 3 is going the I-know-better-then-you-what's-good-for-you way.
Sure by giving you an extension system that allows you to do whatever you want with the desktop ....
Is anyone doing that?
- We think Gnome 3 is doing similar type of mistake as Windows 8.
GNOME3 has nothing to do with windows 8 other than both work better on touch devices then previous releases .... supporting new hardware isn't really a bad thing imo.
And neither much contemplated that the interface that's appropriate for a mobile phone is not appropriate for a desktop. I still use Gnome 3, despite the many helpful suggestions to change. I don't find it quite as annoying as Windows 8 (where it's sometimes hard even to know how to close down an app), but I do find that: 1. I no longer use workspaces to manage different tasks unless there are lots of windows and then I sometimes overflow onto 2. This is because they're less useful as you now can't switch without going to the activities view and they aren't segregated well. At work I have a KDE desktop and use four routinely. 2. I do less with my computer. Fedora installs quite a lot of applications, some of which are interesting. Occasionally I'd spot something in a menu and think 'that's interesting', I don't do this any more.
On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Ian Malone ibmalone@gmail.com wrote:
- Gnome 3 is going the I-know-better-then-you-what's-good-for-you way.
Sure by giving you an extension system that allows you to do whatever you want with the desktop ....
Is anyone doing that?
https://extensions.gnome.org/ ... seems so ;)
- We think Gnome 3 is doing similar type of mistake as Windows 8.
GNOME3 has nothing to do with windows 8 other than both work better on touch devices then previous releases .... supporting new hardware isn't really a bad thing imo.
And neither much contemplated that the interface that's appropriate for a mobile phone is not appropriate for a desktop.
GNOME 3 is not a mobile phone interface. Repeating that multiple times does not make it true.
I still use Gnome 3, despite the many helpful suggestions to change. I don't find it quite as annoying as Windows 8 (where it's sometimes hard even to know how to close down an app), but I do find that:
- I no longer use workspaces to manage different tasks unless there
are lots of windows and then I sometimes overflow onto 2. This is because they're less useful as you now can't switch without going to the activities view and they aren't segregated well.
You have a keyboard Crtl-Alt-<up/down> works fine (Odd on a "mobile phone interface" but you can do a lot of things with the keyboard).
And now I think this thread is going nowhere lets stop here.
On 9 February 2013 12:25, drago01 drago01@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Ian Malone ibmalone@gmail.com wrote:
- Gnome 3 is going the I-know-better-then-you-what's-good-for-you way.
Sure by giving you an extension system that allows you to do whatever you want with the desktop ....
Is anyone doing that?
https://extensions.gnome.org/ ... seems so ;)
Is not very useful. 19 pages of unorganised apps. It's not even immediately obvious how to install one (it is not intuitive to me that a slider on a web page should make a change to my desktop).
- We think Gnome 3 is doing similar type of mistake as Windows 8.
GNOME3 has nothing to do with windows 8 other than both work better on touch devices then previous releases .... supporting new hardware isn't really a bad thing imo.
And neither much contemplated that the interface that's appropriate for a mobile phone is not appropriate for a desktop.
GNOME 3 is not a mobile phone interface. Repeating that multiple times does not make it true.
I didn't. I implied it would be more suitable as a mobile phone interface.
I still use Gnome 3, despite the many helpful suggestions to change. I don't find it quite as annoying as Windows 8 (where it's sometimes hard even to know how to close down an app), but I do find that:
- I no longer use workspaces to manage different tasks unless there
are lots of windows and then I sometimes overflow onto 2. This is because they're less useful as you now can't switch without going to the activities view and they aren't segregated well.
You have a keyboard Crtl-Alt-<up/down> works fine (Odd on a "mobile phone interface" but you can do a lot of things with the keyboard).
Not my point. My point is that everything is made a little harder, pushed a little further away, in ways that make more efficient working patterns harder.
And now I think this thread is going nowhere lets stop here.
In the end, more than any usability quibbles, the best reason to give up on a project is when it refuses to listen to its end users.
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 07:59:22PM +0000, Ian Malone wrote:
In the end, more than any usability quibbles, the best reason to give up on a project is when it refuses to listen to its end users.
The GNOME release notes over various cycles have listed loads of changes which have been made based on the things that have been learned. This happened during 2.x as well as 3.x.
Although you do not explicitly state it, it seems you were talking about GNOME. Vincent Untz phrased it much better than I ever could, but he basically pointed at the "Power Off". You can also read the release notes for loads of other changes.
If you see the development version of 3.8, you'll note an entire new workflow that is introduced.
See above for some pointers and concrete data.
I guess you assume because choices are made and that you cannot do everything (or whatever you requested), that this implies that no user is listened to.
Am 11.02.2013 11:31, schrieb Olav Vitters:
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 07:59:22PM +0000, Ian Malone wrote:
In the end, more than any usability quibbles, the best reason to give up on a project is when it refuses to listen to its end users.
The GNOME release notes over various cycles have listed loads of changes which have been made based on the things that have been learned. This happened during 2.x as well as 3.x.
Although you do not explicitly state it, it seems you were talking about GNOME. Vincent Untz phrased it much better than I ever could, but he basically pointed at the "Power Off". You can also read the release notes for loads of other changes
this is all fine
BUT why are things completly re-written and in a pre-alpha state released replacing and destroying the users workload and after that it takes years to fix all teh issues in the one or another way?
this big mistakes are happening over and over and the speed these are happening is growing with each compontent instead learn from mistakes and release software after it is finished or do not make a rewrite at all
it does users not help much if 2-3 years later things starting to get useable again - why? because in the meantime someone is changing the next subsystem against a pre-alpha and years later people are proud to have fixed a lot of issues while forget that they all were introduced by release unready software
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 11:37:31AM +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 11.02.2013 11:31, schrieb Olav Vitters:
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 07:59:22PM +0000, Ian Malone wrote:
In the end, more than any usability quibbles, the best reason to give up on a project is when it refuses to listen to its end users.
The GNOME release notes over various cycles have listed loads of changes which have been made based on the things that have been learned. This happened during 2.x as well as 3.x.
Although you do not explicitly state it, it seems you were talking about GNOME. Vincent Untz phrased it much better than I ever could, but he basically pointed at the "Power Off". You can also read the release notes for loads of other changes
this is all fine
BUT why are things completly re-written and in a pre-alpha state released replacing and destroying the users workload and after that it takes years to fix all teh issues in the one or another way?
I have a totally different view.
Could you show me the bugreport about where GNOME destroyed something on a users machine?
GNOME 3 was delayed by 2 cycles. Before that we made loads of releases available for testing. The 3.0 was really stable.
this big mistakes are happening over and over and the speed these are happening is growing with each compontent instead learn from mistakes and release software after it is finished or do not make a rewrite at all
Conflicts with release early and release often and the difference between testing by 50 people and releasing it for 500.000+.
it does users not help much if 2-3 years later things starting to get useable again - why? because in the meantime someone is changing the next subsystem against a pre-alpha and years later people are proud to have fixed a lot of issues while forget that they all were introduced by release unready software
That was addressed by Vincent during FOSDEM.
I mean: - real usability testing (help welcome!) I mean huge groups, non-biased, representing everyone, etc - real studies on biggest issues (help welcome!) I don't mean an internet survey, or a study where the outcome is 'do what some other OS does'. I mean something which is a followup on what Sun did ages ago. - better communication (help welcome!) Sometimes a huge difference to what is decided/planned and what news sites announce
e.g. the poweroff I wanted to see changed more quickly. It could've, but a study would've sped it up greatly. I mean a huge usability study at least every 2 years, and smaller ones after each release.
This to address the difference between: - one developer working on something - a few developers (project gets a few developers) - 50+ developers (jhbuild people) - 500+ people (tarballs/unstable packages) - 5000+? people (beta cycle - 3.x.0) - nothing - 500.000+? (distro release)
Every time the number of people increases 10-fold, you'll find more issues. Expecting that a few developers will ever release something that would be good enough for 500.000 is just unrealistic.
Am 12.02.2013 15:47, schrieb Olav Vitters:
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 11:37:31AM +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 11.02.2013 11:31, schrieb Olav Vitters:
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 07:59:22PM +0000, Ian Malone wrote:
In the end, more than any usability quibbles, the best reason to give up on a project is when it refuses to listen to its end users.
The GNOME release notes over various cycles have listed loads of changes which have been made based on the things that have been learned. This happened during 2.x as well as 3.x.
Although you do not explicitly state it, it seems you were talking about GNOME. Vincent Untz phrased it much better than I ever could, but he basically pointed at the "Power Off". You can also read the release notes for loads of other changes
this is all fine
BUT why are things completly re-written and in a pre-alpha state released replacing and destroying the users workload and after that it takes years to fix all teh issues in the one or another way?
I have a totally different view.
Could you show me the bugreport about where GNOME destroyed something on a users machine?
GNOME 3 was delayed by 2 cycles. Before that we made loads of releases available for testing. The 3.0 was really stable
what are you not understanding in "destroy users workload"? it dies not help if software runs stable if it forces the user to completly re-learn how he used to do things
workload = people are runnign their PC for working with it and doing things not only play around with the OS itself
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 03:50:56PM +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 12.02.2013 15:47, schrieb Olav Vitters:
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 11:37:31AM +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 11.02.2013 11:31, schrieb Olav Vitters:
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 07:59:22PM +0000, Ian Malone wrote:
In the end, more than any usability quibbles, the best reason to give up on a project is when it refuses to listen to its end users.
The GNOME release notes over various cycles have listed loads of changes which have been made based on the things that have been learned. This happened during 2.x as well as 3.x.
Although you do not explicitly state it, it seems you were talking about GNOME. Vincent Untz phrased it much better than I ever could, but he basically pointed at the "Power Off". You can also read the release notes for loads of other changes
this is all fine
BUT why are things completly re-written and in a pre-alpha state released replacing and destroying the users workload and after that it takes years to fix all teh issues in the one or another way?
I have a totally different view.
Could you show me the bugreport about where GNOME destroyed something on a users machine?
GNOME 3 was delayed by 2 cycles. Before that we made loads of releases available for testing. The 3.0 was really stable
what are you not understanding in "destroy users workload"? it dies not help if software runs stable if it forces the user to completly re-learn how he used to do things
workload = people are runnign their PC for working with it and doing things not only play around with the OS itself
Did you read my email at all?
In any case: "destroy users workload"
In my understanding: 1. You're really angry (aka "destroy": wtf!) 2. I have a totally different view 3. It seems you can speak on every users behalf (related to #2)
Note that #2 I already quoted, aside from the things you snipped which gave IMO a friendly explanation. In any case, we can also turn this into a offlist flamewar if you want.
Le samedi 09 février 2013 à 11:34 +0000, Ian Malone a écrit :
On 9 February 2013 00:37, drago01 drago01@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 1:23 AM, Martin Sourada martin.sourada@gmail.com wrote:
- Gnome 3's target audience does not enclose majority of Gnome 2's target audience, though it *does* have some intersection. Many of those are seeing this as arrogance.
Being different does not imply different target audience ... same thing and discussion happened when GNOME 2.0 got released. Now the haters from back then want GNOME 2.0 back ;)
Gnome 2 slowly returned to the old behaviour in many ways. Gnome 3 is starting to do this.
- Some trivial stuff is taking months to years to re-implement (shut down).
Nonsense. Shutdown has always been implemented. It just got presented differently.
Hidden. On the bizarre assumption users didn't need it.
based on the assumption that showing "hibernate, suspend, reboot, shutdown, log out, lock" was asking too much questions and that we could do better. See http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2006/11/21.html for the rational of the problem.
And if people had discussed with the designers, they would have seen designers answering "yes, the current design is not perfect, we are aware, but we do not know how to do better, we have to think about. For now, we have to release".
In the end, you have to select a design and release. Contrary to the popular belief, Gnome took in account the KDE 4 releases lessons and pushed gnome-shell for 2 releases to avid the stability issues ( and to be fair for KDE4, the biggest stability issues came mostly from Nvidia (http://vizzzion.org/?blogentry=819 ), but of course, people prefer to blame free software developers rather than questioning their choice of using a closed source binary )
And the assumption was that using the power button would have been easy enough for people to get it ( since people do get it for like almost every possible electronic stuff and likely all computers stuff except a few one ). It doesn't seems a totally bizarre assumption to me.
- Gnome 3 is going the I-know-better-then-you-what's-good-for-you way.
Sure by giving you an extension system that allows you to do whatever you want with the desktop ....
Is anyone doing that?
That's the problem. Most people prefer to talk rather to do work. And then complain that the others do not do exactly what they want for free and immediately.
- We think Gnome 3 is doing similar type of mistake as Windows 8.
GNOME3 has nothing to do with windows 8 other than both work better on touch devices then previous releases .... supporting new hardware isn't really a bad thing imo.
And neither much contemplated that the interface that's appropriate for a mobile phone is not appropriate for a desktop.
Gnome-shell is not mean to be used nor appropriate for a mobile phone. And despite being rather usable on a touch screen ( I tested ), it is still not sufficient there for 1 million of details ( Vincent Untz talk also said the same, see gnome people to see the details ).
Gnome 3 and Gnome-shell is not for a smartphone because :
1) none of the applications are suitable for a very small screen ( like a phone ). Just try with Xnest. Or use a VM with a ridiculously low resolution.
2) given the resolution of a regular smart phone, the icon on the upper bar would either take too much space in order to be usable, or would be hard to hit. Unless you use a stylet, but I didn't see any smart phones proposing this since 2008. That's for example a problem that plagued the illume interface on the SHR distribution for the free runner. Please also note that the upper bar cannot be expended, while it is one most smartphones. So to be used on smartphone, you need to adjust it.
3) the only phone I know who can have a view of all applications is the N9 on Meego. And that's just to close applications, not to move them to another desktop or anything. Neither iPhone nor Android does it, and not even talking of symbian os. So the whole interaction is rather different. And of course, there is no keyboard shortcut for the feature, since n9 do not have keyboard. So again, you would have to make adjustment.
4) gnome-shell search need a keyboard. There is more and more refinement on it, because that's a important part of the system. Nowadays, most phones do not come with a keyboard, neither do most tablets. And the few phone with a keyboard are having a numeric keypad. Typing anything is slow in the best case. So again, that's something that would need adjustment for a smartphone.
So when the developpers say this is not made for a phone, when there is actual strong evidence that it doesn't work on a phone, why do people insist on the contrary ?
Michael Scherer wrote:
Gnome-shell is not mean to be used nor appropriate for a mobile phone. And despite being rather usable on a touch screen ( I tested ), it is still not sufficient there for 1 million of details ( Vincent Untz talk also said the same, see gnome people to see the details ).
But it is clearly inspired by mobile phone UIs. Why? Phones are not the target, so why copy them? It leads to an interface which is not appropriate for ANY platform. It's not appropriate for mobile phones for the reasons you cite, it's not appropriate for computers because it looks and feels like a smartphone UI, so what IS it appropriate for?
Users of computers have certain expectations of how a user interface looks like, and gnome-shell completely fails to meet those expectations (as do Unity and Window$ 8's "Modern UI" (formerly known as "Metro"), which both suffer from the exact same problem).
Kevin Kofler
On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 03:46:57PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Michael Scherer wrote:
Gnome-shell is not mean to be used nor appropriate for a mobile phone. And despite being rather usable on a touch screen ( I tested ), it is still not sufficient there for 1 million of details ( Vincent Untz talk also said the same, see gnome people to see the details ).
But it is clearly inspired by mobile phone UIs. Why? Phones are not the target, so why copy them? It leads to an interface which is not appropriate for ANY platform. It's not appropriate for mobile phones for the reasons you cite, it's not appropriate for computers because it looks and feels like a smartphone UI, so what IS it appropriate for?
Touch friendliness (but on a laptop / desktop).
Users of computers have certain expectations of how a user interface looks like, and gnome-shell completely fails to meet those expectations (as do Unity and Window$ 8's "Modern UI" (formerly known as "Metro"), which both suffer from the exact same problem).
In my country smart phones are outselling computers, computer sales are way down.
On 9 February 2013 12:52, Michael Scherer misc@zarb.org wrote:
Le samedi 09 février 2013 à 11:34 +0000, Ian Malone a écrit :
On 9 February 2013 00:37, drago01 drago01@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 1:23 AM, Martin Sourada martin.sourada@gmail.com wrote:
- Gnome 3's target audience does not enclose majority of Gnome 2's target audience, though it *does* have some intersection. Many of those are seeing this as arrogance.
Being different does not imply different target audience ... same thing and discussion happened when GNOME 2.0 got released. Now the haters from back then want GNOME 2.0 back ;)
Gnome 2 slowly returned to the old behaviour in many ways. Gnome 3 is starting to do this.
- Some trivial stuff is taking months to years to re-implement (shut down).
Nonsense. Shutdown has always been implemented. It just got presented differently.
Hidden. On the bizarre assumption users didn't need it.
based on the assumption that showing "hibernate, suspend, reboot, shutdown, log out, lock" was asking too much questions and that we could do better. See http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2006/11/21.html for the rational of the problem.
Too many questions, better to introduce an unexpected mouse-keyboard combination?
And the assumption was that using the power button would have been easy enough for people to get it ( since people do get it for like almost every possible electronic stuff and likely all computers stuff except a few one ). It doesn't seems a totally bizarre assumption to me.
Sound cards used to have physical volume knobs, maybe we should reintroduce those and then there wouldn't be a need for a volume control on the desktop? And get rid of network manager, I can always just whip out the aerial or ethernet cable if I want...
- Gnome 3 is going the I-know-better-then-you-what's-good-for-you way.
Sure by giving you an extension system that allows you to do whatever you want with the desktop ....
Is anyone doing that?
That's the problem. Most people prefer to talk rather to do work. And then complain that the others do not do exactly what they want for free and immediately.
Ah, no, my point is that this kind of 'do it yourself answer' doesn't work for many people. Is the user that's confused by the choice between shutdown and suspend expected to write their own extension to do it? And yes, I realise there's an extension to do *that* particular job.
- We think Gnome 3 is doing similar type of mistake as Windows 8.
GNOME3 has nothing to do with windows 8 other than both work better on touch devices then previous releases .... supporting new hardware isn't really a bad thing imo.
And neither much contemplated that the interface that's appropriate for a mobile phone is not appropriate for a desktop.
Gnome-shell is not mean to be used nor appropriate for a mobile phone. And despite being rather usable on a touch screen ( I tested ), it is still not sufficient there for 1 million of details ( Vincent Untz talk also said the same, see gnome people to see the details ).
So when the developpers say this is not made for a phone, when there is actual strong evidence that it doesn't work on a phone, why do people insist on the contrary ?
I didn't. I said:
And neither much contemplated that the interface that's appropriate for a mobile phone is not appropriate for a desktop.
Gnome 3 is designed for a touch interface. The majority of touch interfaces are mobile phones. Touch interfaces on computers are a minority. Gnome 3 is a poor mobile phone interface, but that doesn't mean it's a good laptop or desktop one. Touch screen is not the reality for the majority of office workers for example, and I do wonder how useful it would be at all to them.
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Ian Malone ibmalone@gmail.com wrote:
Gnome 3 is designed for a touch interface. The majority of touch interfaces are mobile phones. Touch interfaces on computers are a minority. Gnome 3 is a poor mobile phone interface, but that doesn't mean it's a good laptop or desktop one. Touch screen is not the reality for the majority of office workers for example, and I do wonder how useful it would be at all to them.
I flew to Atlanta recently and saw a number of people using iPads in the Bluetooth-keyboard-mounted configuration. It was ghastly to watch - they'd type a bit, then poke the screen, type some more, poke some more, ... I really can't imagine doing serious knowledge work without a mouse or at least a trackpad. And I despise trackpads.
I use GNOME 3 with a mouse and keyboard. I like it. I can't imagine using it on a phone or a tablet. I *think* what the GNOME 3 designers (and the Unity bastardization of GNOME 3) were going for was an interface that *could* be used either on a touch screen or a "conventional" KVM setup. I've also tried both Cinnamon and MATE on both Fedora and Linux Mint. Really, with a few mouse clicks, you can customize *any* Linux desktop *except* GNOME 3 to be Mac-like (menu in the upper left) or Windows-like (menu in the lower left) and can add panels, taskbars, etc.
-- imalone http://ibmalone.blogspot.co.uk -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On 02/09/2013 03:34 AM, Ian Malone wrote:
- I no longer use workspaces to manage different tasks unless there
are lots of windows and then I sometimes overflow onto 2. This is because they're less useful as you now can't switch without going to the activities view and they aren't segregated well. At work I have a KDE desktop and use four routinely.
On my laptop, I have four workspaces. One for email, one for Eclipse, one for my pile of browser windows, and one for other stuff. I also have a terminal with many tabs in each workspace. Other than the standard shortcuts for switching between workspaces (which I rarely use), I have mapped <Logo>[1-4] to directly switch between workspaces. I rarely need to go to the overview other than starting programs.
As an aside, when I first saw gnome-shell, I thought it would be horrible to use. But after a while of using it, finding gnome-tweak-tool, and installing a couple of extensions, I've been quite happy with it. I actually think it's more keyboard friendly than Gnome 2 was.
On Sunday, February 10, 2013, Samuel Sieb samuel@sieb.net wrote: > As an aside, when I first saw gnome-shell, I thought it would be horrible to use. But after a while of using it, finding gnome-tweak-tool, and installing a couple of extensions, I've been quite happy with it. I actually think it's more keyboard friendly than Gnome 2 was.
Somewhat funny that many users even don't know this tweak tool and ask everywhere about this......
Christopher Meng cickumqt@gmail.com writes:
Somewhat funny that many users even don't know this tweak tool and ask everywhere about this......
I always found it odd that gnome-tweak-tool even exists.. some functionality are found in the system settings, some in gnome-tweak-tool. If you ask me, gnome-tweak-tool should be part of the standard system settings. Call it "advanced shell options" or something. It would be easier for users to find, provide a more consistent GNOME experience, and ultimately happier users.
Cheers,
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 01:28:54PM +0100, Trond Hasle Amundsen wrote:
Christopher Meng cickumqt@gmail.com writes:
Somewhat funny that many users even don't know this tweak tool and ask everywhere about this......
I always found it odd that gnome-tweak-tool even exists.. some functionality are found in the system settings, some in gnome-tweak-tool. If you ask me, gnome-tweak-tool should be part of the standard system settings. Call it "advanced shell options" or something. It would be easier for users to find, provide a more consistent GNOME experience, and ultimately happier users.
This has been addressed various times. In brief: Advanced buttons do not work. They'll be clicked every time. Tweak tool provides a different guarantee of stability. For instance: if you change an option in System Settings and it results in a bug it must be fixed asap. At the same time, the sloppy focus option in Tweak tool is known to have issues. And to avoid misunderstandings: sloppy focus has less issues with every release.
Olav Vitters wrote:
This has been addressed various times. In brief: Advanced buttons do not work. They'll be clicked every time. Tweak tool provides a different guarantee of stability. For instance: if you change an option in System Settings and it results in a bug it must be fixed asap. At the same time, the sloppy focus option in Tweak tool is known to have issues. And to avoid misunderstandings: sloppy focus has less issues with every release.
Having a separate "tweak tool" is a lame workaround for lack of settings in the official tools. The only reason such "tweak tools" exist on proprietary operating systems is because the proprietary companies don't want to officially support some functionality, so you need a third-party tool to enable the hidden settings. Having an "official tweak tool" is really really silly.
Kevin Kofler
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 03:03:44PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Having a separate "tweak tool" is a lame workaround for lack of settings in the official tools. The only reason such "tweak tools" exist on proprietary operating systems is because the proprietary companies don't want to officially support some functionality, so you need a third-party tool to enable the hidden settings. Having an "official tweak tool" is really really silly.
I don't get why you reply to me. It seems anything people do is just bad.
No tweak tool: bad A tweak tool: bad
If the only thing you can do is complain about the work that other people do, find another hobby or something.
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 11:12:32AM +0100, Olav Vitters wrote:
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 03:03:44PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Having a separate "tweak tool" is a lame workaround for lack of settings in the official tools. The only reason such "tweak tools" exist on proprietary operating systems is because the proprietary companies don't want to officially support some functionality, so you need a third-party tool to enable the hidden settings. Having an "official tweak tool" is really really silly.
I don't get why you reply to me. It seems anything people do is just bad.
No tweak tool: bad A tweak tool: bad
If the only thing you can do is complain about the work that other people do, find another hobby or something.
PS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tweak_UI
Olav Vitters wrote:
It was written by one individual employee and released as an unsupported tool. It'd have been a third-party tool if the author didn't happen to be an M$ employee.
Kevin Kofler
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 11:20:04PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Olav Vitters wrote:
It was written by one individual employee and released as an unsupported tool. It'd have been a third-party tool if the author didn't happen to be an M$ employee.
GNOME tweak tool was written by one developer and released as a unsupported tool. It'd would have been an unsupported tool if we didn't change our mind based on user feedback. The settings itself still might expose bugs.
Pretty much the same as same as what happened with tweak UI?
M$ is boring btw, use MS or Microsoft.
Il giorno lun, 11/02/2013 alle 11.12 +0100, Olav Vitters ha scritto:
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 03:03:44PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Having a separate "tweak tool" is a lame workaround for lack of settings in the official tools. The only reason such "tweak tools" exist on proprietary operating systems is because the proprietary companies don't want to officially support some functionality, so you need a third-party tool to enable the hidden settings. Having an "official tweak tool" is really really silly.
I don't get why you reply to me. It seems anything people do is just bad.
No tweak tool: bad A tweak tool: bad
If the only thing you can do is complain about the work that other people do, find another hobby or something.
This argument doesn't really work, either.
Cheers, Mario
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 01:30:29PM +0100, Mario Torre wrote:
This argument doesn't really work, either.
Care to provide any argumentation? At the moment if that were true, I'd could just refer to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_pot_calling_the_kettle_black
But actually I explained myself. You're not.
Olav Vitters wrote:
I don't get why you reply to me. It seems anything people do is just bad.
No tweak tool: bad A tweak tool: bad
Strawman…
What I actually mean is: Completely hidden or absent settings ("no tweak tool"): bad Settings hidden in a tweak tool: bad Settings available and exposed in the normal settings dialog: good
If the only thing you can do is complain about the work that other people do, find another hobby or something.
This ad hominem attack deserves no reply.
Kevin Kofler
I wrote:
Olav Vitters wrote:
I don't get why you reply to me. It seems anything people do is just bad.
No tweak tool: bad A tweak tool: bad
Strawman…
What I actually mean is: Completely hidden or absent settings ("no tweak tool"): bad Settings hidden in a tweak tool: bad Settings available and exposed in the normal settings dialog: good
PS: See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma .
Kevin Kofler
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 11:18:09PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Olav Vitters wrote:
I don't get why you reply to me. It seems anything people do is just bad.
No tweak tool: bad A tweak tool: bad
Strawman…
What I actually mean is: Completely hidden or absent settings ("no tweak tool"): bad Settings hidden in a tweak tool: bad Settings available and exposed in the normal settings dialog: good
That is exactly what I mean: I explained why it is not in the main dialog. The setting is available. There is a GUI. Still bad, has to be done in yet another way.
For instance: "Settings hidden in a tweak tool": Those settings aren't hidden.
There was a nice post by a developer at Microsoft on settings. First there would be a request for a setting. Eventually it would be added to the registry. Then exposed somewhere else. Eventually in the main program. Every step hugely increases the amount of work that has to be done. I tried finding the blogpost, but very unfortunately could not.
If the only thing you can do is complain about the work that other people do, find another hobby or something.
This ad hominem attack deserves no reply.
You call ad hominem and strawman way too quickly. Suggest not claiming stuff like "Settings hidden in a tweak tool", as that is just not true. I could look up what term is used for that, but cannot be bothered.
On Sun, 2013-02-10 at 15:03 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Olav Vitters wrote:
This has been addressed various times. In brief: Advanced buttons do not work. They'll be clicked every time. Tweak tool provides a different guarantee of stability. For instance: if you change an option in System Settings and it results in a bug it must be fixed asap. At the same time, the sloppy focus option in Tweak tool is known to have issues. And to avoid misunderstandings: sloppy focus has less issues with every release.
Having a separate "tweak tool" is a lame workaround for lack of settings in the official tools. The only reason such "tweak tools" exist on proprietary operating systems is because the proprietary companies don't want to officially support some functionality,
Well, that's pretty much the case here. People providing tweaks for underlying settings that shouldn't be there, buttons and tweaks that are usually broken, untested, and unsupported.
so you need a third-party tool to enable the hidden settings. Having an "official tweak tool" is really really silly.
It's not so much official as de facto. The settings maintainers don't spend their time on it.
On 10/02/13 06:03 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Olav Vitters wrote:
This has been addressed various times. In brief: Advanced buttons do not work. They'll be clicked every time. Tweak tool provides a different guarantee of stability. For instance: if you change an option in System Settings and it results in a bug it must be fixed asap. At the same time, the sloppy focus option in Tweak tool is known to have issues. And to avoid misunderstandings: sloppy focus has less issues with every release.
Having a separate "tweak tool" is a lame workaround for lack of settings in the official tools. The only reason such "tweak tools" exist on proprietary operating systems is because the proprietary companies don't want to officially support some functionality, so you need a third-party tool to enable the hidden settings. Having an "official tweak tool" is really really silly.
Kevin, you work on a desktop which sufficiently represents your views. I think we're all aware that if we want fifteen thousand settings in the control panel, we can run KDE. Do you really believe you're going to convince the GNOME developers to turn GNOME into KDE with posts like the above? If not, what's the point of writing them? What do you expect your post to achieve?
On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 19:31:42 -0800 Adam Williamson wrote:
Kevin, you work on a desktop which sufficiently represents your views. I think we're all aware that if we want fifteen thousand settings in the control panel, we can run KDE. Do you really believe you're going to convince the GNOME developers to turn GNOME into KDE with posts like the above? If not, what's the point of writing them? What do you expect your post to achieve?
I don't think that's what he is trying to tell. I believe it's: either expose the setting, or don't have the setting. The middle way is broken, be it semi-official tweak tool or even worse "advanced" tab. Especially if the tweak tool is for settings that are expected to be broken, unsupported or eating kitties.
I mean, what's behind the idea of having an unsupported, half-broken switch in a *stable* release in the first place? If you don't support it, or it isn't finished, why it's in the stable release? If it's supported and finished, why it isn't visible? The most *I* can understand is: "we have implemented this setting, because we think it's important, the setting is supported and it isn't eating kitties, but we don't know yet how to properly expose it in UI". But Olav seems to suggest otherwise and that's probably what Kevin responds to.
Martin
Martin Sourada wrote:
I don't think that's what he is trying to tell. I believe it's: either expose the setting, or don't have the setting. The middle way is broken, be it semi-official tweak tool or even worse "advanced" tab. Especially if the tweak tool is for settings that are expected to be broken, unsupported or eating kitties.
Actually, I think not having the setting at all is no better (in fact, it's worse). I think settings should be made available to the user, but not in a half-assed "tweak tool". That's what the settings dialog is for.
Kevin Kofler
Hi
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 9:09 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
I think settings should be made available to the user, but not in a half-assed "tweak tool". That's what the settings dialog is for.
We understand that is your view point and it is fine to hold that view point and as a KDE maintainer in Fedora, we can all understand where you are coming from but repeatedly insisting that it is the only view valid view is not going to accomplish much and just creates unnecessarily friction. Please move on
Rahul
Olav Vitters olav@vitters.nl writes:
Somewhat funny that many users even don't know this tweak tool and ask everywhere about this......
I always found it odd that gnome-tweak-tool even exists.. some functionality are found in the system settings, some in gnome-tweak-tool. If you ask me, gnome-tweak-tool should be part of the standard system settings. Call it "advanced shell options" or something. It would be easier for users to find, provide a more consistent GNOME experience, and ultimately happier users.
This has been addressed various times. In brief: Advanced buttons do not work. They'll be clicked every time. Tweak tool provides a different guarantee of stability. For instance: if you change an option in System Settings and it results in a bug it must be fixed asap. At the same time, the sloppy focus option in Tweak tool is known to have issues. And to avoid misunderstandings: sloppy focus has less issues with every release.
Ok, I see the point, and thanks for the explanation. I did suspect that some of the idea behind gnome-tweak-tool is providing features and options that aren't stable enough to exist in system settings. Like a collection of beta features. Would we then see features being eventually moved from tweak-tool to system settings, as they are deemed stable and mostly bug-free?
Cheers,
Il giorno dom, 10/02/2013 alle 14.47 +0100, Olav Vitters ha scritto:
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 01:28:54PM +0100, Trond Hasle Amundsen wrote:
Christopher Meng cickumqt@gmail.com writes:
Somewhat funny that many users even don't know this tweak tool and ask everywhere about this......
I always found it odd that gnome-tweak-tool even exists.. some functionality are found in the system settings, some in gnome-tweak-tool. If you ask me, gnome-tweak-tool should be part of the standard system settings. Call it "advanced shell options" or something. It would be easier for users to find, provide a more consistent GNOME experience, and ultimately happier users.
This has been addressed various times. In brief: Advanced buttons do not work. They'll be clicked every time. Tweak tool provides a different guarantee of stability. For instance: if you change an option in System Settings and it results in a bug it must be fixed asap.
This argument is foo bar. If advanced buttons would be clicked any time... then it means users *want* to tweak those features, they should be integrated in the core preferences. Why should I ever need to install a separate tool to fix my font settings or to add back buttons to the otherwise useless and space wasting window bar?
Gnome 3 is not an experimental desktop anymore, it's been around for some time and it's the default desktop in Fedora... it's about time to fix it [1].
Cheers, Mario
[1] This is my opinion, at least. And note, this is not to flame. I do like *some* features of Gnome 3 more than any other desktop, it has great potential, I just think it's greatly unexpressed.
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 01:30:02PM +0100, Mario Torre wrote:
Il giorno dom, 10/02/2013 alle 14.47 +0100, Olav Vitters ha scritto:
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 01:28:54PM +0100, Trond Hasle Amundsen wrote:
Christopher Meng cickumqt@gmail.com writes:
Somewhat funny that many users even don't know this tweak tool and ask everywhere about this......
I always found it odd that gnome-tweak-tool even exists.. some functionality are found in the system settings, some in gnome-tweak-tool. If you ask me, gnome-tweak-tool should be part of the standard system settings. Call it "advanced shell options" or something. It would be easier for users to find, provide a more consistent GNOME experience, and ultimately happier users.
This has been addressed various times. In brief: Advanced buttons do not work. They'll be clicked every time. Tweak tool provides a different guarantee of stability. For instance: if you change an option in System Settings and it results in a bug it must be fixed asap.
This argument is foo bar. If advanced buttons would be clicked any time... then it means users *want* to tweak those features, they should be integrated in the core preferences. Why should I ever need to install a separate tool to fix my font settings or to add back buttons to the otherwise useless and space wasting window bar?
Just try to explain the following: - How does someone know if something is in Advanced or not?
Gnome 3 is not an experimental desktop anymore, it's been around for some time and it's the default desktop in Fedora... it's about time to fix it [1].
Very vague statement? Help welcome :)
Trond Hasle Amundsen t.h.amundsen@usit.uio.no wrote:
Christopher Meng cickumqt@gmail.com writes:
Somewhat funny that many users even don't know this tweak tool and ask everywhere about this......
I always found it odd that gnome-tweak-tool even exists.. some functionality are found in the system settings, some in gnome-tweak-tool. If you ask me, gnome-tweak-tool should be part of the standard system settings. Call it "advanced shell options" or something. It would be easier for users to find, provide a more consistent GNOME experience, and ultimately happier users.
The point of having the Tweak Tool is to provide an enhanced experience for those users who do want to tweak, while maintaining a sane set of options for those people who don't have an interest in customisation.
I would personally love to see the Tweak Tool grow to become more comprehensive and interesting. There are no limits on what can be included there. This freedom of expansion is something you would never have with System Settings - there simply isn't space for everything you would want to include.
I'd also like to see a Theme Tool or similar for those people who want to play around with themes. Having dedicated applications for these types of activities should allow a far better experience than lumping everything into the control center. System Settings simply isn't a good fit for this (the old GNOME 2 appearance settings were never great; compare them with something like Windows Blinds [1] and you'll see what having a dedicated application means in terms of quality of experience).
Part of the issue here is that the Tweak Tool doesn't get a huge amount of developer time, which means that the value of having a separate tool hasn't been quite realised. If anyone wants to help with this, just step up. It's a simple Python app, and the maintainer is usually responsive.
Allan
[1] http://www.stardock.com/products/windowblinds/ -- IRC: aday on irc.gnome.org Blog: http://afaikblog.wordpress.com/
On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 11:34:34AM +0000, Ian Malone wrote:
Gnome 2 slowly returned to the old behaviour in many ways. Gnome 3 is starting to do this.
As someone who, I presume, does not like Gnome 3, and as someone who, I will wildly guess, shares the notion that GNOME devs are doing whatever they want and not listening to your use cases...
...are you certain...
...absolutely certain...
...that you'd like to be on record setting the precedent that GNOME 3 is admitting failure by compromising to your standards?
--CJD
On 11 February 2013 07:15, Casey Dahlin cdahlin@redhat.com wrote:
On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 11:34:34AM +0000, Ian Malone wrote:
Gnome 2 slowly returned to the old behaviour in many ways. Gnome 3 is starting to do this.
As someone who, I presume, does not like Gnome 3, and as someone who, I will wildly guess, shares the notion that GNOME devs are doing whatever they want and not listening to your use cases...
...are you certain...
...absolutely certain...
...that you'd like to be on record setting the precedent that GNOME 3 is admitting failure by compromising to your standards?
On record? Is there going to be a trial? What frustrates me is it's such an uphill battle. Step 1: Everything changes. Step 2: Users protest, some leave. Step 3: Supporters respond there's nothing wrong and essentially everyone who doesn't like it is too stupid or lazy. Step 4: Users carry on complaining. Step 5: Some features are gradually re-added, without ever acknowledging there was a problem in the first place. Step 6: Minor release? Go to step 4. Step 7: Major release? Go to step 5.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ian Malone" ibmalone@gmail.com To: "Development discussions related to Fedora" devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 9:51:41 AM Subject: Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Cinnamon as Default Desktop
On 11 February 2013 07:15, Casey Dahlin cdahlin@redhat.com wrote:
On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 11:34:34AM +0000, Ian Malone wrote:
Gnome 2 slowly returned to the old behaviour in many ways. Gnome 3 is starting to do this.
As someone who, I presume, does not like Gnome 3, and as someone who, I will wildly guess, shares the notion that GNOME devs are doing whatever they want and not listening to your use cases...
...are you certain...
...absolutely certain...
...that you'd like to be on record setting the precedent that GNOME 3 is admitting failure by compromising to your standards?
On record? Is there going to be a trial? What frustrates me is it's such an uphill battle. Step 1: Everything changes. Step 2: Users protest, some leave. Step 3: Supporters respond there's nothing wrong and essentially everyone who doesn't like it is too stupid or lazy. Step 4: Users carry on complaining. Step 5: Some features are gradually re-added, without ever acknowledging there was a problem in the first place. Step 6: Minor release? Go to step 4. Step 7: Major release? Go to step 5.
Hmm, you seem to forgot that there is also alternative: Step 2: New users try it, like it, stay with it.
P.S. As everything is subjective I have to assure you that I'm one of these - former KDE, now Gnome 3 user.
Alexander Kurtakov Red Hat Eclipse team
-- imalone http://ibmalone.blogspot.co.uk -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Ian Malone wrote:
On record? Is there going to be a trial? What frustrates me is it's such an uphill battle. Step 1: Everything changes. Step 2: Users protest, some leave. Step 3: Supporters respond there's nothing wrong and essentially everyone who doesn't like it is too stupid or lazy. Step 4: Users carry on complaining. Step 5: Some features are gradually re-added, without ever acknowledging there was a problem in the first place. Step 6: Minor release? Go to step 4. Step 7: Major release? Go to step 5.
↑ Go to step 1, you mean? :-)
Kevin Kofler
On 11 February 2013 22:24, Kevin Kofler kevin.kofler@chello.at wrote:
Ian Malone wrote:
On record? Is there going to be a trial? What frustrates me is it's such an uphill battle. Step 1: Everything changes. Step 2: Users protest, some leave. Step 3: Supporters respond there's nothing wrong and essentially everyone who doesn't like it is too stupid or lazy. Step 4: Users carry on complaining. Step 5: Some features are gradually re-added, without ever acknowledging there was a problem in the first place. Step 6: Minor release? Go to step 4. Step 7: Major release? Go to step 5.
↑
Go to step 1, you mean? :-)
Ah yes, this'll be fixed in the next release.
On 02/08/2013 07:23 PM, Martin Sourada wrote:
- gnome devs are systematically removing features many former gnome users thought were useful, and sometimes adding them back again after a year or so of complains.
Today's xkcd is relevant---"every change breaks someone's workflow"
For the record, I found Gnome3 a little baffling initially, but then grew to like it. At first I missed my icon shortcuts in the top bar, etc. On the other hand, I liked the fact that I could find applications by just typing their name, rather than hunting through pop-up menu hierarchies---I realized that in G2 I ran many GUI apps from term windows. Overall, the annoyance factor was about the same as when I lost my G2 configuration, which happened a couple of times due to reinstalls and G2 bugs that required removing ~/.gnome2
From what I hear that was a common experience: a sigh, something gained, something lost, no big deal overall. I am sure there were more conservative people who were more upset, to the extent that they may have switched to another system, but the flip side of it is that those likely to switch switched already so no big migrations in the future.
I'm not sure there's any place in our community where it is acceptable for people "to go to fight." Nor do I think that would be healthy. I would prefer to think that noone in our community really wants to hurt anyone else. I think if anyone showed up at any face-to-face meeting specifically with the intent "to fight" or to "hurt someone" they would feel intimidated and would modify their behavior accordingly.
So I really don't understand why FOSDEM as a collection of individuals at a face-to-face meeting. would be any different than another face-to-face meeting.
But I will say that I would prefer it if our written communication channels were similarly less tolerant of individuals who show up primarily "to fight" or are intent on "hurting someone." Text communication channels, are inherently prone to a loss of civility, and by collectively condoning behavior we'd otherwise find uncomfortable in a face to face setting we hasten the debasement of the level of discourse therein.
-jef
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net wrote:
Le Ven 8 février 2013 13:22, Olav Vitters a écrit :
On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 10:34:58AM +0100, Stijn Hoop wrote:
I am providing a datapoint that directly contradicts your original statement, namely that there is a "completely different target audience" for GNOME 2 vs GNOME 3.
I am that datapoint.
As are various others during FOSDEM (Vincent Untz asked people to raise their hands). No idea how representative that it.
The FOSDEM poll was stacked — no one really wanted to hurt Vincent Untz too much given his obvious efforts to be nice, there was this knot of GNOME people bunched together that were a tad intimidating, and people do not go to FOSDEM to fight. What is telling however is the complete refusal of the audience to put systemd and Gnome 3 in the same bucket. Lennart's efforts to explain his project, understand sysadmin needs, provide a smooth transition and keep current usages working clearly paid off there.
So don't overplay the GNOME 3 FOSDEM session, it was an awkward moment for everyone involved (and certainly not representative of the positive energy that permeated other presentations).
-- Nicolas Mailhot
-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Fri, 08.02.13 20:35, Nicolas Mailhot (nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net) wrote:
Le Ven 8 février 2013 13:22, Olav Vitters a écrit :
On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 10:34:58AM +0100, Stijn Hoop wrote:
I am providing a datapoint that directly contradicts your original statement, namely that there is a "completely different target audience" for GNOME 2 vs GNOME 3.
I am that datapoint.
As are various others during FOSDEM (Vincent Untz asked people to raise their hands). No idea how representative that it.
The FOSDEM poll was stacked — no one really wanted to hurt Vincent Untz too much given his obvious efforts to be nice, there was this knot of GNOME people bunched together that were a tad intimidating, and people do not go to FOSDEM to fight. What is telling however is the complete refusal of the audience to put systemd and Gnome 3 in the same bucket. Lennart's efforts to explain his project, understand sysadmin needs, provide a smooth transition and keep current usages working clearly paid off there.
Actually, don't try to separate us systemd folks too much from the GNOME3 folks. I as one of the systemd guys, am a GNOME3 guy too. I fully support GNOME3's goals, much of my work I see as groundwork to achieve GNOME3's goals, and I believe GNOME3 is the best thing that ever happened to the Linux desktop. When I see a GNOME2 desktop it appears like a trip down memory lane to me, and even though it was only a few years ago that GNOME2 was the state of the art of a Linux desktop it now appears to be as old as Windows 3.1 to me. And I am really thankful I don't have to use Windows 3.1 anymore.
So yeah, I'll jump in defending GNOME 3 any time, thank you very much, even though I know that these discussions will never stop any haters from hating, and never stop them from doing this publicly, and repetitively and loudly on mailing lists such as this one.
Lennart
Lennart,
For better or worse Vincent Untz had people express themselves on systemd at FOSDEM, and pretty much everyone thought you were doing great. I can understand your regrets that it was less the case for your GNOME 3 friends, but that should not overshadow this great achievement of the systemd team.
Given the scope of your work, I don't think anyone would have predicted a week ago systemd could attain such a complete adhesion. That is something to remember and rejoice on.
The FOSDEM poll was stacked ??? no one really wanted to hurt Vincent Untz too much given his obvious efforts to be nice, there was this knot of GNOME people bunched together that were a tad intimidating, and people do
[...]
So don't overplay the GNOME 3 FOSDEM session, it was an awkward moment for everyone involved (and certainly not representative of the positive energy that permeated other presentations).
Sounds like bitterness to me.
First we had the rabid hordes of hatred mongers running surveys, polls and what not to support their claims of how GNOME 3 sucks and no one uses it anymore and so on and so forth.
Now that the other side of the argument is coming to light, you are trying to cling on to your vociferous claims at all costs.
For what it is worth, I have been using GNOME since 2004 and absolutely loved the move to GNOME3.
Cheers, Debarshi
Le Ven 8 février 2013 21:30, Debarshi Ray a écrit :
The FOSDEM poll was stacked ??? no one really wanted to hurt Vincent Untz too much given his obvious efforts to be nice, there was this knot of GNOME people bunched together that were a tad intimidating, and people do
[...]
So don't overplay the GNOME 3 FOSDEM session, it was an awkward moment for everyone involved (and certainly not representative of the positive energy that permeated other presentations).
Sounds like bitterness to me.
[…]
Now that the other side of the argument is coming to light, you are trying to cling on to your vociferous claims at all costs.
Do you realise my "vociferous claims" didn't even include an opinion on which side of the argument the audience was leaning towards most? Can you please stop the stupid bunker mentality?
I stand by my statement that this was a very awkward moment, with Vincent and the GNOME team radiating unhappiness and pretty much everyone else being perplexed and wondering whether they should take offence at being accused of being mad or if it was some weird form of apology. Certainly not the kind of celebration being portrayed here.
As for the vocifering, I'll leave that to others.
On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 11:21:49PM +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
I stand by my statement that this was a very awkward moment, with Vincent and the GNOME team radiating unhappiness and pretty much everyone else being perplexed and wondering whether they should take offence at being accused of being mad or if it was some weird form of apology. Certainly not the kind of celebration being portrayed here.
As for the vocifering, I'll leave that to others.
Radiating unhappiness? As you're talking about me I will reply briefly: bullshit. I would appreciate that you stop suggesting this about my and my friends, thanks.
Note that and I think most other didn't know the contents of the talk that Vincent would give.
Did you actually attend the presentation? It really seems you did not.
On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 08:35:56PM +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le Ven 8 février 2013 13:22, Olav Vitters a écrit :
On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 10:34:58AM +0100, Stijn Hoop wrote:
I am providing a datapoint that directly contradicts your original statement, namely that there is a "completely different target audience" for GNOME 2 vs GNOME 3.
I am that datapoint.
As are various others during FOSDEM (Vincent Untz asked people to raise their hands). No idea how representative that it.
The FOSDEM poll was stacked — no one really wanted to hurt Vincent Untz too much given his obvious efforts to be nice, there was this knot of GNOME people bunched together that were a tad intimidating, and people do not go to FOSDEM to fight. What is telling however is the complete refusal of the audience to put systemd and Gnome 3 in the same bucket. Lennart's efforts to explain his project, understand sysadmin needs, provide a smooth transition and keep current usages working clearly paid off there.
So don't overplay the GNOME 3 FOSDEM session, it was an awkward moment for everyone involved (and certainly not representative of the positive energy that permeated other presentations).
1. The poll was right at the beginning 2. I don't get how it is intimidating to raise your hand 3. I don't get how we were intimidating 4. A user interface is more like a bike shed than anything else
Obviously I sat together with other GNOME people, as I know them. Sometimes I sit randomly in the audience. I find it curious that you find something negative about my behaviour.
On Sat, 2013-02-09 at 15:01 +0100, Olav Vitters wrote:
On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 08:35:56PM +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le Ven 8 février 2013 13:22, Olav Vitters a écrit :
On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 10:34:58AM +0100, Stijn Hoop wrote:
I am providing a datapoint that directly contradicts your original statement, namely that there is a "completely different target audience" for GNOME 2 vs GNOME 3.
I am that datapoint.
As are various others during FOSDEM (Vincent Untz asked people to raise their hands). No idea how representative that it.
The FOSDEM poll was stacked — no one really wanted to hurt Vincent Untz
I didn't get this feeling seeing the questions asked at the end.
too much given his obvious efforts to be nice, there was this knot of GNOME people bunched together that were a tad intimidating, and people do not go to FOSDEM to fight. What is telling however is the complete refusal of the audience to put systemd and Gnome 3 in the same bucket. Lennart's efforts to explain his project, understand sysadmin needs, provide a smooth transition and keep current usages working clearly paid off there.
So don't overplay the GNOME 3 FOSDEM session, it was an awkward moment for everyone involved (and certainly not representative of the positive energy that permeated other presentations).
- The poll was right at the beginning
- I don't get how it is intimidating to raise your hand
- I don't get how we were intimidating
The only thing I can think of is that people turning their back on you, not looking at you when you are asked to raise your hand on something they worked on, this might be intimidating to some people. I was not one of these, and I certainly got a different feeling from this talk
Pierre
On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 05:38:46PM +0100, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
The only thing I can think of is that people turning their back on you, not looking at you when you are asked to raise your hand on something they worked on, this might be intimidating to some people. I was not one of these, and I certainly got a different feeling from this talk
We were sitting at the front and thus you turn around to see how many people are raising their hands.
In any case, I'll keep it brief. For this current argument: - I provided a measure, added that it is likely biased - No responses to the measure, just changing the topic into yet something else ("GNOME developers are intimidating/looking for a fight")
I'll leave it at that ☺
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 7:47 AM, Ralf Corsepius rc040203@freenet.de wrote:
On 02/06/2013 08:42 AM, Stijn Hoop wrote:
On Tue, 05 Feb 2013 21:46:32 +0100 Ralf Corsepius rc040203@freenet.de wrote:
The actual problem is the current Gnome 3 being an entirely different product than Gnome 2, which usability-wise has *nothing* in common with Gnome2 and addresses a completely different target audience.
Ralf, could you please stop this generalization. You have been conveniently ignoring posts to the contrary, including mine.
Sorry, I don't see what I am generalizing.
Gnome3 and Gnome2's GUI working principles are entirely different and therefore are catering the demands of different target audiences.
Citation needed for implication "is different" -> "catering the demands of different target audiences" .
On 02/08/2013 01:39 PM, drago01 wrote:
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 7:47 AM, Ralf Corsepius rc040203@freenet.de wrote:
Gnome3 and Gnome2's GUI working principles are entirely different and therefore are catering the demands of different target audiences.
Citation needed for implication "is different" -> "catering the demands of different target audiences" .
The main differences are: - Tiled GUI (Gnome3) vs. Menu GUI (Gnome2). - Non-configurable/"dumb" GUI-configuration (Gnome3) vs. highly customizable GUI (Gnome2). - Dynamic workspaces (Gnome3) vs. static workspaces (Gnome2).
There'd be other discussworthy/questionable changes details, but I prefer not to mention them here, to avoid this thread to deviate further.
Ralf
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 08:07:23AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 02/08/2013 01:39 PM, drago01 wrote:
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 7:47 AM, Ralf Corsepius rc040203@freenet.de wrote:
Gnome3 and Gnome2's GUI working principles are entirely different and therefore are catering the demands of different target audiences.
Citation needed for implication "is different" -> "catering the demands of different target audiences" .
The main differences are:
- Tiled GUI (Gnome3) vs. Menu GUI (Gnome2).
GNOME 3.8 will give you a combination.
- Non-configurable/"dumb" GUI-configuration (Gnome3) vs. highly
customizable GUI (Gnome2).
Extensions allow for way more changes than GNOME 2.x.
- Dynamic workspaces (Gnome3) vs. static workspaces (Gnome2).
You can select if you want to have dynamic workspaces or not. In 3.6 that is in gnome-tweak-tool. In 3.8 it would be part of 'classic mode' (hopefully the name will change).
There'd be other discussworthy/questionable changes details, but I prefer not to mention them here, to avoid this thread to deviate further.
Do not see how changes result in a different target audience.
On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 08:06:51PM +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
what makes me rellay angry (as one who never used and will use GNOME and i knew GNOME 1.0 and KDE 1.0 as well where most users of today not heard about linux at all) is that the GNOME developers did NOT learn ANYTHING by the KDE4.0 disaster and that distributions are not straight enough to show ignorant upstream "if you think you can abuse all your users by present a completly different desktop with
Please also look at all the changes we made and are making based on the feedback we have gotten over the various releases. It is often listed in the release notes, blogged about, etc. Extension system is a bit forgotten in the announcements, but that went from fully experimental to beta in just a few releases.
Rave it wrote:
There is a current poll at fedora forum. http://forums.fedoraforum.org/showthread.php?t=284463
The winner is.......
There are several factors which bias this poll: * GNOME 3 is the default in Fedora, so of course more Fedora users will be using it, merely due to the fact that it is the default. * Some people actually left Fedora over GNOME 3. * Conversely, and perhaps even more importantly, many (possibly even most) GNOME 3 users are actually using Fedora now, because Fedora is universally recommended to people wanting to try GNOME 3 as the distro with the best GNOME 3 support.
If you do a poll across users of all distributions, you get very different results: http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/2012-linuxquestions-org-members-choi... and I believe the results for Fedora would be very different as well if we picked a different default.
Kevin Kofler
Hi Kevin,
On Sat, 09 Feb 2013 11:09:15 +0100 Kevin Kofler wrote:
There are several factors which bias this poll:
- GNOME 3 is the default in Fedora, so of course more Fedora users
will be using it, merely due to the fact that it is the default.
- Some people actually left Fedora over GNOME 3.
- Conversely, and perhaps even more importantly, many (possibly even
most) GNOME 3 users are actually using Fedora now, because Fedora is universally recommended to people wanting to try GNOME 3 as the distro with the best GNOME 3 support.
If you do a poll across users of all distributions, you get very different results: http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/2012-linuxquestions-org-members-choi... and I believe the results for Fedora would be very different as well if we picked a different default.
While I inherently believe that that no internet poll can present statistically relevant data (unless huge majority of user-base actually votes), it's actually interesting to see that XFCE is coming second (about 1/4 of votes), after KDE of course (about 1/3 of votes), in the poll you linked. And has twice the votes than the third, which is GNOME Shell (about 1/8 of votes). That's the first time I've seen XFCE win over GNOME, LOL. And yeah, I agree with you about the bias in Fedora poll.
<joke> So, when XFCE-4.12 comes into Fedora (Fedora 20?), how about starting this flamewar again with "XFCE as Default Desktop" feature request? We already tried this with KDE and Cinnamon, after all and XFCE is the second most popular in some random internet poll ;-)</joke>
Maybe we would really be better off if we provided user with the initial choice between KDE, GNOME and XFCE, instead of pointing him directly to 64bit GNOME, which does not boot on half of the world...
Martin
Martin Sourada wrote:
That's the first time I've seen XFCE win over GNOME, LOL.
It shouldn't be, it was the same last year (and I had already posted the link back then). :-) http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/2011-linuxquestions-org-members-choi...
Kevin Kofler
Le samedi 09 février 2013 à 11:09 +0100, Kevin Kofler a écrit :
Rave it wrote:
There is a current poll at fedora forum. http://forums.fedoraforum.org/showthread.php?t=284463
The winner is.......
There are several factors which bias this poll:
- GNOME 3 is the default in Fedora, so of course more Fedora users will be
using it, merely due to the fact that it is the default.
- Some people actually left Fedora over GNOME 3.
- Conversely, and perhaps even more importantly, many (possibly even most)
GNOME 3 users are actually using Fedora now, because Fedora is universally recommended to people wanting to try GNOME 3 as the distro with the best GNOME 3 support.
If you do a poll across users of all distributions, you get very different results: http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/2012-linuxquestions-org-members-choi... and I believe the results for Fedora would be very different as well if we picked a different default.
Well, a majority of people think such polls are useless, thanks to demonstrate that once more. Just to be as clear as possible, I will only speak of 2 points :
1) 792 people. Just to compare, there is 300 people on #fedora-devel on irc, and 800 on #puppet on irc, a media which is said to be "dying". There as around 4000 visitors in FOSDEM in 2008, 5 years ago. So the number of people is just low. I do truly hope we have more than a handful 1000 users across _all_ distributions.
2) if the fedora forums poll is biased due to "default to gnome 3", then why isn't unity being more represented in the linuxquestion poll ? Is it because : - Unity, by some magic reason, do not bias anything while gnome-shell does ( ie, your argument is invalidated by the data you cite ) ? - Ubuntu users have their own forums, like many others distributions and so they are not present ( and so this also bias more by being not at all representative of a group we can safely count as million of user, ie by taking extremly conservative view of the number given by Canonical ) - Ubuntu users, despite perception and enough converging evidences, are far from being a important enough group to count and to bias the poll ?
Michael Scherer wrote:
Well, a majority of people think such polls are useless,
Do you have a poll to prove that? ;-)
Seriously, the only thing more inaccurate than statistic is MADE UP statistics. :-/
- 792 people. Just to compare, there is 300 people on #fedora-devel on
irc, and 800 on #puppet on irc, a media which is said to be "dying". There as around 4000 visitors in FOSDEM in 2008, 5 years ago. So the number of people is just low. I do truly hope we have more than a handful 1000 users across _all_ distributions.
Do you know what a "sample" is?
- if the fedora forums poll is biased due to "default to gnome 3", then
why isn't unity being more represented in the linuxquestion poll ? Is it because :
- Unity, by some magic reason, do not bias anything while gnome-shell
does ( ie, your argument is invalidated by the data you cite ) ?
- Ubuntu users have their own forums, like many others distributions and
so they are not present ( and so this also bias more by being not at all representative of a group we can safely count as million of user, ie by taking extremly conservative view of the number given by Canonical )
- Ubuntu users, despite perception and enough converging evidences, are
far from being a important enough group to count and to bias the poll ?
The answer's right there: http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/2012-linuxquestions-org-members-choi... Looks like most Ubuntu users actually don't use Unity. Maybe it sucks even more than GNOME 3 does, maybe Ubuntu is actually better at promoting other choices (see Kubuntu and Xubuntu) than we are, or maybe LinuxQuestions is more likely to attract people using something other than the default than FedoraForum, I don't know. (There seem to be more GNOME 3 users than Fedora users on LinuxQuestions, so it looks like folks are also using GNOME 3 on other distros. Still, it's much less popular than KDE and Xfce, and compared to the year before, Cinnamon has almost caught up to it.)
Kevin Kofler
On 02/09/2013 12:39 PM, Michael Scherer wrote:
- if the fedora forums poll is biased due to "default to gnome 3", then
why isn't unity being more represented in the linuxquestion poll ?
When talking to Ubuntu users, they are telling Unity is as biasing as Gnome3.
Is it because :
- Unity, by some magic reason, do not bias anything while gnome-shell
does ( ie, your argument is invalidated by the data you cite ) ?
AFAICT, most dissatisfied Ubuntu/Unity users quit Ubuntu for Linux MiNT.
Ralf
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 11:19 PM, Ralf Corsepius rc040203@freenet.de wrote:
When talking to Ubuntu users, they are telling Unity is as biasing as Gnome3.
Aside from the visual arrangement of things, I haven't seen *major* differences between the GNOME 3 and the Unity user interfaces. It's not all that hard for me to mentally switch from my preferred GNOME 3 on Fedora 18 to a Quantal Quetzal default Unity desktop on a virtual machine. Right-click on an icon to remove it from the list, etc. But it's essentially the exact same total mindshift in going from a GNOME 2 menu at the top like older Fedora and Ubuntu to either a GNOME 3 or a Unity desktop. It's *huge* but not insurmountable. The Unity "compiz" crashes, on the other hand, are a show-stopper. ;-)
AFAICT, most dissatisfied Ubuntu/Unity users quit Ubuntu for Linux MiNT.
Well, there are actually *two* Linux Mint desktops, Cinnamon and MATE. They also make a KDE and XFCE version, but I haven't played with those at all. I must admit I don't know the community structures / resource allocations among the three projects - Linux Mint, Cinnamon and MATE.