On Sat, 02.05.09 18:53, Kevin Kofler (kevin.kofler(a)chello.at) wrote:
Bastien Nocera wrote:
> We worked on the new gnome-volume-control because pavucontrol is a "show
> all the options underneath" program, just like the ALSA mixers were.
>
> We wrote use cases, we checked what other systems did, and we intend to
> present something to the user that's less complicated than showing up
> all the knobs PulseAudio offers.
Translation:
"We worked on the new gnome-volume-control because pavucontrol has too many
features and we hate powerful applications.
So we wrote down the simplest use cases we could come up with in a short
brainstorming session and decided to remove all the useful features we
didn't think of, not asking for any actual user input, and we intend to
present a crippled user interface only showing that simplistic subset of
features."
And then you're surprised clichés about GNOME working exactly that way
circulate?
Oh my.
Yes, I know you like KDE. That's OK. But please, why do you feel you
have seize every opportunity to express that you think that the KDE
approach in exposing as many options as possible to the user is better
than the GNOME approach where we don't want to show too many options?
Everyone and his dog knows by now that you like to have many options
and thus are into KDE. You constant complaining and bitching about
GNOME is completely pointless -- since you don't even use it
yourself. You made your choices, and probably have good reasons for
it. Fine. No need for constantly complaining about the choices the
other camp makes.
Please, grow up and don't try to make everything a fight between KDE
and GNOME, neither directly nor between the lines!
Thank you very much,
Lennart
--
Lennart Poettering Red Hat, Inc.
lennart [at] poettering [dot] net
http://0pointer.net/lennart/ GnuPG 0x1A015CC4