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