Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The GNOME Foundation Is Running Short On Money

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by TheBlackCat View Post
    Nice dodge there. So is "UI research with real experts" a good thing or a bad thing?
    *sigh* It is you who are dodging. Just look at the context of that thing you are so happy to quote. Stop playing stupid.

    Seems you are right, it is provided by fcitx. Nevertheless, it does do all the things you said it cannot do.
    It doesn't do them well and it doesn't integrate well. Like I said earlier ITT it behaves differently depending on if application is Qt or something else. You can't deny that.

    Did you try the search? From the first two pages, most of the results are themes. The only examples of actual bugs I could find is one case where a distro built "firefox" to not identify itself as "firefox" (which was fixed quickly), and the other was from a broken java version freezing firefox and had nothing to do with KDE at all.
    *sigh* Thing is, it doesn't work uniformly. You can't deny that.

    That is great in theory, but that doesn't change what happened to me and many other people.
    *sigh* Thing is search in KDE has been persistently problematic. You can't deny that either.

    You didn't answer my question. Which applications are causing you problems?
    Why do you even care? That is irrelevant. Point was that configuring application notifications is tedious compared to GNOME. You can't possibly deny that.

    It looks like there were three main problems: ubuntu using a non-default scheduler, really huge text files (fixed), and the bug I already mentioned about the cleaner (fixed). That is far from "broken". Yes, there were performance issues. One was outside of KDE's (and Gnome's) control, the rest were fixed. Note that the the scheduler one is based on the priority, which is exactly the same reason you gave why tracker couldn't possibly be causing the problems it is causing.
    Okay, so it was broken and still partially is due shoving square pegs in round holes (that scheduler). And it *is* broken for crapping itself over other schedulers.

    Try searching "gnome tracker cpu"
    Oh that one. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=747689 Shared /home is tricky, system does not make difference between if it is mounted locally or shared network device, and people not running GNOME so they could disable indexing easily but who get tracker as dependency are indeed in trouble in that case. It doesn't mean that tracker starts mindlessly indexing every single samba, ftp or ssh share the second you are connected like your FUD led me to understand.

    "desktop independent"? Are you kidding? It depends on, amongst other things, gobject, gio and gdk. There is no sane way to define that as "desktop independent", unless you define "uses Gnome technologies" as "desktop independent" (which some people do).
    This straight from source readme:
    * Desktop-neutral design (it's a freedesktop product built
    around other freedesktop technologies like D-Bus and XDGMime
    but contains no GNOME-specific dependencies besides GLib).

    Just stop with your constant bullshit.

    As for why they didn't go with tracker, the reason is that, being based on RDF, it has fundamental issues that are impossible to work around. The reason they abandoned Nepomuk was primarily because RDF-based storage has inherent problems, switching to tracker would still have lunderstandingeft them with most of the problems they created Baloo to fix in the first place. It also is extremely limited in its capabilities compared to both KDE's implementation of Nepomuk and Baloo. It is basically just a file indexer, while both KDE's Nepomuk and Baloo are much more.
    Just stop already. How do you think GNOME search is able to differentiate between types of files among other things if not semantics? It is not "just a file indexer". Again from source readme...
    2 Use Cases
    Tracker is the most powerful open source metadata database and
    indexer framework currently available and because it is built
    around a combination indexer and SQL database and not a
    dedicated indexer, it has much more powerful use cases:
    * Provide search and indexing facilities similar to those on
    other systems (Windows Vista and Mac OS X).
    * Common database storage for all first class objects (e.g. a
    common music/photo/contacts/email/bookmarks/history database)
    complete with additional metadata and tags/keywords.
    * Comprehensive one stop solution for all applications needing
    an object database, powerful search (via RDF Query), first class
    methods, related metadata and user-definable metadata/tags.
    * Can provide a full semantic desktop with metadata everywhere.
    * Can provide powerful criteria-based searching suitable for
    creating smart file dialogs and vfolder systems.
    * Can provide a more intelligent desktop using statistical
    metadata.


    Which was a problem introduced by NetworkManager, a primarily Gnome project.
    It was a conscious decision by openSUSE developers.

    I'm done talking with you. This leads nowhere. You don't know anything and never admit to being wrong. This is like arguing with religious fanatic. Utterly pointless.
    Last edited by daedaluz; 05-08-2014, 02:28 PM.

    Comment


    • The bottom line is people are not choosing Gnome 3.
      9 out of 10 people pick something other than Gnome 3.
      http://fossforce.com/2014/02/kde-tops-desktop-poll/

      No matter what or how hard you argue people do not like it.
      Gnome 2 had most of the market. People jumped ship when Gnome 3 came out.
      Hell even Cinnamon and MATE are overtaking Gnome 3.

      Torvaldis has quoted for Gnome 3 "total user experience design failure"
      So "Experts" designed G3 and people don't like it. That makes them terrible experts.

      Gnome 3 is a failure of Unity like proportions.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by grndzro View Post
        The bottom line is people are not choosing Gnome 3.
        9 out of 10 people pick something other than Gnome 3.
        http://fossforce.com/2014/02/kde-tops-desktop-poll/.
        From the author in the same posted link
        Originally posted by Christine Hall
        That’s why we always try to stress that these polls are highly unscientific. In this case, the poll appeared in an article that was very positive about KDE, and several KDE sites linked to the article. Therefore, a very large percentage of the people who saw the poll would be KDE users. Also, the fact that we only listed KDE, GNOME 3 and Cinnamon and made all other desktops “other” write-in candidates doubtlessly hurt them as well.
        The rest of the comments are already invalid considering the fact Linus Tovarlds actually use Gnome Shell: http://www.zdnet.com/linus-torvalds-...op-7000012083/ since the extensions allowing to mimics legacy Gnome 2 resulting Gnome Classic around Gnome 3.8 covered most of his complaints.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by finalzone View Post
          From the author in the same posted link

          The rest of the comments are already invalid considering the fact Linus Tovarlds actually use Gnome Shell: http://www.zdnet.com/linus-torvalds-...op-7000012083/ since the extensions allowing to mimics legacy Gnome 2 resulting Gnome Classic around Gnome 3.8 covered most of his complaints.
          So most users need extensions that mimic Gnome 2 for Gnome 3.
          I don't call that a win for Gnome 3. Especially when Gnome 3.6 is still on the wrong track.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by grndzro View Post
            So most users need extensions that mimic Gnome 2 for Gnome 3.
            I don't call that a win for Gnome 3. Especially when Gnome 3.6 is still on the wrong track.
            It is a win because extensions display the flexibility of Gnome Shell. The incoming Red Hat Enterprise 7 uses that example.
            It appears your information is out of date considering Gnome has reached 3.12 and most distributions already runs on 3.10.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by finalzone View Post
              It is a win because extensions display the flexibility of Gnome Shell.
              It may be a win for showing the flexibility of the GNOME codebase, but is still a fail for their design team if people consider it only usable with extensions that recreate the GNOME 2 interface.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Vim_User View Post
                It may be a win for showing the flexibility of the GNOME codebase, but is still a fail for their design team if people consider it only usable with extensions that recreate the GNOME 2 interface.
                Exactly. If the majority of Gnome 3 users are using a hacked up version then what is the adoption of a default Gnome 3 Desktop?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Vim_User View Post
                  It may be a win for showing the flexibility of the GNOME codebase, but is still a fail for their design team if people consider it only usable with extensions that recreate the GNOME 2 interface.
                  You are only quoting what Torvalds said. He is not people. He's one person.

                  Originally posted by grndzro
                  Exactly. If the majority of Gnome 3 users are using a hacked up version then what is the adoption of a default Gnome 3 Desktop?
                  Extensions are officially supported. They have their own portal right at extensions.gnome.org. Saying that people who use those use a "hacked up version" of GNOME is just plain stupid.
                  Last edited by daedaluz; 05-08-2014, 10:47 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by daedaluz View Post
                    You are only quoting what Torvalds said. He is not people. He's one person.
                    For sure. Torvalds is the only person on the planet that uses the Gnome 2 interface on Gnome Shell. That must be the reason the Gnome 2 interface for Gnome Shell will be the default in RHEL 7. Just for Torvalds. Get real.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Vim_User View Post
                      It may be a win for showing the flexibility of the GNOME codebase, but is still a fail for their design team if people consider it only usable with extensions that recreate the GNOME 2 interface.
                      GNOME 2 interface (Gnome Classic session) was recreated for more conservative users especially in enterprise market while keeping the shell technology, nothing to do with the failure of design as insinuated. Implying flexibility is somehow an issue of usability issue shows dishonestly in the argument as if it means to permanently stall the project in maintenance mode rather than adapting to the modern market.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by grndzro View Post
                        Exactly. If the majority of Gnome 3 users are using a hacked up version then what is the adoption of a default Gnome 3 Desktop?
                        The people I know use and like the default Gnome3 desktop. Personally, I don't care much if there's a panel I can click on or not, as I mostly use the keyboard anyway.

                        Comment


                        • I, for one, despise Gnome 3.x. It seems to be a regression in features and usability. Kind of like Windows 8's start menu, except that you can hide the Start Menu and never look at it, unlike Gnome 3, which puts the entire desktop in a touch-based layout (at least, that's what it seems to me).

                          Right now, I'm flipping between Enlightenment, Cinnamon, and XFCE.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by swbf2lord View Post
                            I, for one, despise Gnome 3.x. It seems to be a regression in features and usability. Kind of like Windows 8's start menu, except that you can hide the Start Menu and never look at it, unlike Gnome 3, which puts the entire desktop in a touch-based layout (at least, that's what it seems to me).
                            It seems features and usability is defined as having the 90's layout as your preference suggests. Start Menu can be add via extension on Gnome Shell while Windows 8 version lacked without major hacking.

                            As read on the previous post
                            The GNOME Shell design also started to grapple with the challenges presented by modern computer hardware. Producing a desktop which would be well suited to netbook screens was a key concern. Touch input was another target, and the GNOME 3 design evolved so that it would be as ready to make the leap to touch screen devices. The GNOME 3 desktop was designed so that it would be usable and recognisable across a whole range of computing devices.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by finalzone View Post
                              It seems features and usability is defined as having the 90's layout as your preference suggests. Start Menu can be add via extension on Gnome Shell while Windows 8 version lacked without major hacking.

                              As read on the previous post
                              Nah, you misunderstand. It's not about the Start Menu, or lack thereof. I don't like to use a desktop that is intended for touch devices with a mouse and keyboard. I've used Gnome 3, and when I did, I used the extensions heavily to get it to where I wanted. There were some things that were good about it, but not enough to keep me there. It feels very constricting compared to other interfaces. It's not "modern", it's just touch screen oriented.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by swbf2lord View Post
                                Nah, you misunderstand. It's not about the Start Menu, or lack thereof. I don't like to use a desktop that is intended for touch devices with a mouse and keyboard. I've used Gnome 3, and when I did, I used the extensions heavily to get it to where I wanted. There were some things that were good about it, but not enough to keep me there. It feels very constricting compared to other interfaces. It's not "modern", it's just touch screen oriented.
                                It's not touch-screen oriented, in fact it doesn't work well there yet. It was only designed with the possibility of supporting touch screens in the future. It's far more keyboard-oriented than the old GNOME2 interface, although it's less keyboard friendly than a tiling window manager. It's arguably less mouse-friendly on a large screen than GNOME2 due to the global menu, but 3.12 made using it optional. It allows replacing the global menu with an icon in the header bars. There was never pain when you're using the keyboard, because you're not moving the mouse up to the menu anyway.
                                Last edited by strcat; 05-09-2014, 11:35 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X